ON OCTOBER 21, 2025, THE NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION’S International Human Rights Committee hosted a conversation on ‘Judicial Independence at Risk: Reflections from the U.S. and India’. It brought together Justice S. Murlidhar, Former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court, Shira Scheindlin, Retired U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York, Margaret Satterthwaite, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and Samah Sissay, Attorney from the Center for Constitutional Rights, a non-profit legal advocacy organisation based in New York.
Across both India and the United States, panelists traced familiar and troubling patterns: pervasive executive influence, interference in judicial appointments, and polarization within the judiciary itself. Yet, what emerged from the conversation was more than a comparative reflection between two democracies, it was a warning that judges and judicial actors are under attack. And by attack, we no longer mean only the erosion of institutional authority or the dilution of constitutional norms, but also the very real threat of physical violence.
Justice Murlidhar reminded the audience of a recent incident when a shoe was hurled at the Chief Justice of India. In that moment it was a spectacle, but it is a symptom of something deeper - a loss of respect for judicial authority and a willingness to bring physical violence into a court room where only words are meant to persuade. He noted, however, that for judges at the district and subordinate levels, such risks are not exceptional but routine. Many operate under constant threat, often relying on the same state administration, frequently party to the disputes before them, for personal security.
Turning to the US, Judge Shira Scheindlin reflected on how words can corrode respect for the courts from within. She recalled President Trump’s repeated attacks on judges, calling them “looney” and “corrupt.”
“What message,” she asked, “are you sending to your followers? Do you think they will respect judges when they hear this from the President?”
Judge Scheindlin also recounted the chilling stories of judges receiving unsolicited pizza deliveries at their homes, a malicious way of saying, “We know where you live.” These acts, while seemingly trivial or even funny, mark a dangerous new normal in which judicial independence is not undermined through law but through fear. She warned, “the threat of violence is in the air as we become a more and more polarized country.”
Samah Sissay echoed this sentiment, but from the vantage point of a lawyer practicing in immigration courts. She spoke of rising hostility not only toward judges but also toward lawyers and bar associations themselves. The pressure on the bar, she noted, is seeping into the courtroom. Legal aid organizations and even their funders are being branded as ‘terrorist(s)’ - part of a broader attempt to delegitimize those who safeguard access to justice.
While Margaret Satterthwaite agreed with reflections of the panel, she spoke about the political capture of bar associations as well. Drawing on her experience from various countries, she spoke of the State’s interference and severe restrictions that can be placed on the legal professionals, especially when lawyers defend activists and opposition figures. Even in the United States, she noted, the bar is becoming more polarized, its associations susceptible to ideological capture, its leadership less able to act as an independent counterweight to power.
The panelists were unanimous in their view that a strong and principled bar is the first line of defense for a judiciary under attack. Judge Scheindlin reflected that in the US, when judges face public criticism or intimidation, bar associations step forward to defend them, a critical safeguard since judges cannot speak out on matters that are sub judice. “It is imperative,” she emphasized, “that lawyers speak up in defense of the Constitution.”
“The bar is where the judges come from, so it has to be ethically spotless,” Satterthwaite reminded the audience. Justice Murlidhar echoed this, underscoring that professional integrity and civic orientation must begin at the bar. When that moral foundation weakens, the judiciary cannot stand tall.
Satterthwaite also offered concrete ways in which bar associations can forge transnational solidarity in defence of judicial independence. Drawing from her role as UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, she noted that bars can welcome lawyers and judges in exile, establish welfare funds for displaced legal professionals, and develop mutual‐aid protocols across jurisdictions so that when one legal community is under siege, others stand ready to intervene.
Ultimately, judicial independence is not a self-executing guarantee. It depends on a vigilant and supportive legal fraternity, which includes judges who uphold their oath, and lawyers that refuse to remain silent. When judges or lawyers begin to prioritize political allegiance over their sworn duty to the Constitution, then rule of law itself is in jeopardy. Protecting our freedoms, therefore, requires courage, not only from those on the bench, but from those who stand before it. Bar associations must reclaim their moral centre, placing ethics and public service at the heart of professional identity. They must invest in the inculcation of values, rebuild welfare and solidarity mechanisms for threatened lawyers, and resist the creeping capture of political or financial interests. Above all, they must reaffirm their duty to defend, not defer to, power.
