By Adv. Salini T S
The conviction of Kerala MLA and former Transport Minister Antony Raju in early January 2026 for evidence tampering in a 1990 drug smuggling case—resulting in a three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence—has once again spotlighted serious vulnerabilities in India’s legal and judicial framework. While the case itself has received widespread media coverage, it serves as a compelling entry point to examine deeper, systemic issues: the presence of unqualified or “fake” practitioners in the legal profession, ethical lapses by some advocates, and critical shortages of judicial officers that perpetuate massive case backlogs.
The Challenge of Unqualified and Fake Advocates
A persistent threat to the integrity of the justice system is the enrolment and practice of individuals without valid qualifications or using forged degrees. In a 2015 statement, then-Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra estimated that up to 30% of lawyers in India might hold fake degrees or lack proper qualifications, with around 20% practicing without valid credentials. Although this figure dates from a decade ago and reflects estimates during an earlier verification push, it parallels concerns raised in analogous professions (such as medicine) about unqualified practitioners undermining public trust.
Recent actions underscore the on-going problem. The BCI has conducted verification drives, removing 107 fake advocates from the Delhi roll alone between 2019 and October 2024, following investigations into forged documents, misrepresented qualifications, and non-compliance. Broader efforts continue, with the BCI directing state bar councils in 2025 to prioritize comprehensive checks amid reports of fake enrolments and forged certificates. Lax initial verification processes by some state bar councils—coupled with delays in cross-verification with universities—have allowed such issues to persist, enabling unqualified individuals to appear in courts and erode confidence in the profession.
Professional Misconduct and Ethical Lapses
Beyond fake qualifications, misconduct by enrolled advocates further weakens the system. This includes fabrication of evidence, misrepresentation to courts, deliberate delays for personal gain, client fraud (as upheld in Supreme Court rulings like P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti, 1997), courtroom disruptions, repeated non-appearances, and negligence in representation. Such acts violate professional ethics and the constitutional oath, contributing to perceptions of impunity and delaying justice for litigants.
Chronic Shortage of Judicial Officers
The judiciary’s capacity to address these issues—and deliver timely justice—is severely hampered by longstanding vacancies. According to government data from late 2025, there are 4,855 vacancies for judicial officers in district and subordinate courts against a sanctioned strength of 25,886 (approximately 19% vacancy rate in lower courts). The India Justice Report 2025 highlights even starker figures for higher levels: 33% vacancies in High Courts (with some courts exceeding 50%) and an overall average of only 15 judges per million population—far below the Law Commission’s recommended 50 per million.
This shortage contributes to overwhelming workloads: district court judges handle an average of around 2,200 cases each, while some High Court benches manage thousands more. Pendency exceeds 4.8–5 crore cases across subordinate and higher courts, with many lingering for years or decades. The result is systemic delay, as seen in the 35+ years it took for the Antony Raju case to reach final verdict.
Urgent Reforms Needed
Addressing these interconnected shortcomings requires coordinated, high-priority action from the bar, bench, and government:
- Implement robust, technology-driven verification at enrollment stage, with mandatory real-time cross-checks against university databases and national repositories to detect forgeries early.
- Strengthen penal measures: mandate disbarment for serious offenses like evidence tampering or fake qualifications, alongside fast-track disciplinary proceedings.
- Fill judicial vacancies expeditiously through streamlined recruitment, increased sanctioned strength, and temporary measures like ad hoc appointments where feasible.
- Adopt digitized, secure evidence protocols (e.g., blockchain-secured vaults) and regular audits of court staff to prevent internal complicity.
- Encourage political parties to screen candidates rigorously, avoiding those with serious pending charges.
- Accelerate broader efficiency gains: expand judicial staffing, leverage AI for case management, and promote alternative dispute resolution to reduce the over 4.8 crore backlog.
The Antony Raju conviction, while delivering accountability after decades, is a reminder that isolated verdicts are insufficient without structural overhaul. By confronting fake practitioners, enforcing ethical standards, and urgently addressing the acute shortage of judges, India’s legal system can restore credibility, ensure equitable justice, and prevent further erosion of public faith. The imperative for reform is clear and immediate.
