Public trust in the judiciary is the bedrock of any democratic society. When that trust erodes, the entire legal system faces a crisis of legitimacy. A recent opinion piece by Abhinandita Dayal Mathur, published on May 8, 2026, argues that this erosion often stems from a subtle but critical imbalance: judges prioritizing their own sense of integrity over the appearance of fairness.
The Core Argument
The article posits that even when a judge's decision is legally sound and morally upright, the perception of bias can be damaging. If the process or the judge's conduct lacks transparency or appears to favor one side, public confidence suffers. The phrase 'justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done' is central to this discussion.
Integrity vs. Appearance
Judges are trained to uphold integrity, but the author suggests that an overemphasis on personal moral conviction can blind them to how their actions are perceived. For example, a judge who privately consults with a colleague about a case may feel confident in their impartiality, but the public may view it as improper influence. The article calls for a renewed focus on procedural transparency and accountability.
Impact on Public Trust
When the appearance of fairness is compromised, the public begins to question whether justice is truly blind. This skepticism can lead to lower compliance with court orders, increased appeals, and a general cynicism toward legal institutions. The author warns that this is particularly dangerous in politically sensitive cases, where perceptions of bias can fuel social unrest.
Case Studies and Examples
While the article does not name specific cases, it references historical instances where judicial conduct was scrutinized. It highlights that even well-intentioned judges can inadvertently create an impression of partiality through off-the-bench activities, social connections, or opaque reasoning in judgments.
A Path Forward
The author recommends several measures to restore trust: mandatory ethics training for judges, stricter recusal rules, and more detailed written judgments that explain not just the legal reasoning but also the procedural steps taken to ensure fairness. Additionally, the article advocates for greater diversity on the bench to reflect societal perspectives.
In conclusion, Mathur argues that the judiciary must balance integrity with the perception of fairness. Without this balance, the very foundation of justice—public trust—is at risk. The article serves as a timely reminder that in a democracy, how justice is seen is as important as how it is done.
