'Fixer lawyers' facilitating bribery of judges; intelligence agencies should pass details to Collegium: Mahesh Jethmalani - Bar and Bench

**Fixer lawyers** have emerged as a focal point in the ongoing debate over judicial integrity, after senior lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani warned that a small cadre of “fixer” attorneys are allegedly facilitating the bribery of judges. Speaking at the sixth Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, Jethmalani, son of the late constitutional stalwart, said that these lawyers act as intermediaries between litigants and corrupt members of the bench, arranging illegal payments and influencing case outcomes. He cited unnamed but credible intelligence inputs that suggest a systematic network operating across several high courts, and urged the nation’s law‑enforcement agencies to treat the matter with the same urgency as other forms of organized crime.

In the same forum, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant delivered the keynote address, emphasizing the need for “institutional safeguards” that can pre‑empt such malfeasance. He reiterated the Supreme Court’s earlier stance that all complaints against judges should be examined transparently, but stopped short of endorsing a public complaints portal. Jethmalani, building on the CJI’s remarks, called for the country's intelligence agencies—both internal and external—to forward any information they gather on judicial bribery directly to the Judicial Collegium, the body responsible for the appointment and elevation of judges. He argued that timely sharing of intelligence would enable the Collegium to vet candidates more rigorously and remove tainted members before they ascend to higher courts.

The demand for a more robust oversight mechanism has found resonance in recent media commentary. India Today highlighted the broader question of whether every grievance against a judge should be posted on a publicly accessible website, while The Print reported that Jethmalani’s statements have reignited calls for a statutory “Judicial Ethics Commission.” As the debate unfolds, legal experts caution that any reform must balance transparency with the preservation of judicial independence, noting that unchecked public exposure could jeopardize the confidentiality essential to the adjudicative process. Nonetheless, the convergence of voices from the Bar, the bench, and civil society signals a growing consensus that the judiciary’s credibility cannot be left to chance.