In the democratic fabric of India, the judiciary is not merely an institution-it is the moral compass that steers the nation when other branches falter. Revered as the ultimate guardian of constitutional values, the judiciary enjoys unparalleled public trust, precisely because it has, over the decades, consistently risen above political tides to uphold justice, equity, and the rule of law. However, when allegations or findings of ethical lapses emerge-not from fringe actors, but from the very individuals who once helmed the highest judicial offices-the damage reverberates far beyond the confines of any individual's reputation. It questions the sanctity of the institution itself and unsettles public faith in the impartial machinery of justice.

The Singapore Shock: A Sobering Reminder:

The recent ruling by the Singapore Supreme Court, which annulled an arbitral award co-authored by former Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra, has sent ripples through the Indian legal ecosystem. The Court held that 212 out of 451 paragraphs-nearly half of the award-were directly copied from a previous arbitral ruling. This was not brushed aside as clerical or accidental oversight; rather, it was found to constitute a grave breach of diligence and impartiality, undermining the very integrity of the arbitral process. When such conclusions are drawn by a foreign judiciary about a former head of India's apex court, it is not just an international embarrassment-it is an institutional indictment.

A Legacy Tarnished by Post-Retirement Conduct:

Justice Misra's tenure as Chief Justice of India was undeniably transformative. His judgments on Section 377, passive euthanasia, and honour crimes were milestones in the liberalization of Indian jurisprudence. Yet, this post-retirement controversy casts a long shadow over that legacy. It underscores an uncomfortable truth-that judicial dignity is not confined to tenure. The mantle of constitutional authority does not expire with retirement. On the contrary, those who have held such esteemed positions are expected to embody the same principles in every sphere of public engagement thereafter. The moral authority once wielded within courtrooms must also illuminate conduct in conference rooms, arbitral panels, and public forums.

A Cultural Indifference to Originality: An Unspoken Compromise:

What this episode unveils is not merely an isolated failing but a broader cultural complacency. In India, the problem of intellectual replication-whether in academic submissions, bureaucratic work, or professional opinions-is too often met with indulgent shrugs or procedural silence. Unlike in global institutions where academic and professional plagiarism carries immediate consequences, India lacks a unified ethical framework governing post-retirement conduct of jurists, arbitrators, or legal professionals. The absence of such a framework creates a grey area where professional slippages occur, unchecked-until they are caught by more exacting standards abroad.

When Ethics Outpace Legality:

The most disconcerting element in this episode is that the conduct, while ethically indefensible, may not even constitute a violation of Indian copyright law. But this is precisely where the conversation must mature. The standards for those who occupy or have occupied constitutional posts must rise above bare legality. The exercise of judicial reasoning-especially in arbitration-demands original application of mind, independent analysis, and the exercise of discretion rooted in fairness. Reproduction without attribution, even when legally permissible, betrays a deeper ethical failure. When former judges fall short of these expectations, the fallout is not personal-it is institutional.

Toward a National Ethical Framework:

It is now imperative that India reassesses its laxity toward ethical accountability beyond judicial office. What is needed is not piecemeal regulation but a comprehensive national code of conduct that spans students, academics, bureaucrats, lawyers, and judges-serving or retired. In arbitration, specifically, it is time to mandate plagiarism-detection software and enforce disclosure norms regarding sources and inspiration. Just as academic institutions have embraced originality audits, arbitration panels too must incorporate technological and procedural safeguards that preserve their credibility.

Reclaiming Public Confidence Through Education and Transparency:

We must resist the temptation to focus solely on punitive measures. What India requires is a paradigm shift in public values-one that begins in the classroom and extends into professional ethics. Original thought must not only be expected but celebrated as a democratic virtue. The judiciary, in particular, would benefit from structured ethics workshops, mandatory post-retirement conduct guidelines, and transparent declarations in any quasi-judicial role assumed thereafter.

A Moment of Reckoning, Not Retaliation:

Justice Misra's contributions to Indian constitutional law cannot, and should not, be erased. But neither should this moment be trivialized as a harmless aberration. It is a reminder that ethical leadership is a lifelong obligation, especially for those who have once donned the robe of constitutional authority. This controversy offers India a chance to introspect, recalibrate, and reaffirm its commitment to the moral compass that its judiciary represents.

Let this episode be a turning point-not in condemnation, but in reform. The dignity of the judiciary, once shaken, can only be restored through consistent integrity, unwavering transparency, and systemic transformation. The choice is not between legacy and accountability-true legacy is built on the foundation of both.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539