The recent recommendation of senior legal professional Aarti Sathe for elevation as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court has ignited a political and ideological storm, with the Opposition raising questions about her prior affiliation with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The controversy, rooted in concerns over judicial independence and political neutrality, has triggered a larger debate on the boundaries between politics and the judiciary in modern India.
A Journey from Legal Halls to Political Corridors
Aarti Sathe, a prominent name in tax litigation circles, was officially recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on July 28 for appointment as a judge of the Bombay High Court, along with two other advocates, Ajit Kadethankar and Sushil Ghodeswar.
What has made her appointment contentious is her brief but visible association with the BJP between January 2023 and January 2024.
Born to a middle-class Maharashtrian family deeply rooted in the legal profession, Sathe’s career path seemed destined for law.
Her father, Arun Sathe, is a well-known lawyer and a founding member of the BJP who served on its national executive. He is also the brother of the late Sumitra Mahajan, former Lok Sabha Speaker, adding another layer of political proximity.
Despite the familial ties, Sathe carved her own space in the world of law, specializing in direct tax litigation.
With over two decades of experience, she has argued cases before prestigious forums such as SEBI, SAT, and CESTAT, and has also represented clients in matrimonial disputes before the Bombay High Court.
Earlier in her career, she worked with the Economic Law Practice (ELP) and was mentored in the chambers of senior counsel Percy Pardiwala. She has also appeared before the Supreme Court and other High Courts.
Political Role: Symbolic or Significant?
Her appointment as the spokesperson for the Mumbai BJP in February 2023 and her role as head of the party’s legal cell raised eyebrows after the Collegium’s recommendation.
While critics argue that political proximity should automatically disqualify a candidate for judicial office, party insiders have defended the move, calling her role “symbolic” and “largely ceremonial.”
Sources within the BJP maintain that she was not a regular at party offices or public events and that her involvement was limited.
They assert that she had stepped down from all posts and resigned from the party’s primary membership in January 2024, over a year before the recommendation came through. “Her role was honorary, and she never actively campaigned or engaged in partisan politics,” a BJP source said.
Notably, Sathe has continued to participate in legal seminars, often championing the cause of gender equality and the empowerment of women through education and employment.
At one such event, she had remarked, “Women should collaborate, give wings and impetus… They should network with like-minded people from all walks of life.”
Political Reactions and Legal Counterpoints
The Opposition, however, has been swift and sharp in its criticism. Rohit Pawar, NCP(SP) MLA and general secretary, described the appointment as a “grave threat to democratic institutions,” questioning the impartiality of the judiciary if individuals with political affiliations are appointed to the bench.
“The appointment of someone who has spoken publicly for the ruling party is a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary,” Pawar said, clarifying that his objection was not to Sathe’s credentials, which he acknowledged as strong, but to the implications of such a move for democratic processes.
In response, Maharashtra BJP’s chief spokesperson Keshav Upadhye dismissed the allegations as “baseless and politically motivated,” reiterating that the appointment was made purely based on professional merit and was by all legal procedures.
“Her name was recommended almost 18 months after she severed all ties with the party. There is no ongoing affiliation,” he stated.
To bolster the defence, BJP leaders pointed to historical precedents of politicians who were elevated to the bench, including Justice Baharul Islam (a Rajya Sabha member before being appointed to the Supreme Court), Justice K S Hegde, Justice Aftab Alam, and Justice F I Rebello.
These examples, they argue, demonstrate that professional excellence — not political neutrality — has often been the key criterion for judicial appointments.
A Larger Debate on Institutional Integrity
While supporters of Sathe argue that her impeccable legal credentials and domain expertise make her an ideal candidate for the bench, critics warn that even symbolic or short-lived affiliations with political parties can erode public trust in the judiciary.
This issue is especially sensitive in today’s climate, where democratic institutions are under heightened scrutiny, and transparency in appointments is seen as crucial to maintaining public confidence.
Legal experts suggest that perhaps a more robust cooling-off period between political activity and judicial appointments could help maintain a clearer boundary between the executive and judiciary. Some have even advocated for institutional reforms that ensure greater transparency in Collegium recommendations.
Meanwhile, Aarti Sathe has not made any public statement since the controversy erupted. A senior lawyer familiar with her work remarked, “She will be on probation like every other additional judge.
Her judgments will be scrutinized by peers, seniors, and the public alike. The system has checks and balances, and she will have to prove herself on the bench.”
As the Centre awaits to issue the final notification regarding her appointment, all eyes will be on how this moment — blending politics, professionalism, and public perception — will influence future judicial appointments in India.
#AartiSathe #JudiciaryInIndia #SupremeCourtCollegium #BombayHighCourt #JudicialIndependence #BJP #OppositionVoices #LegalProfession #MeritOrPolitics #ConstitutionalDebate #IndianDemocracy #SeparationOfPowers #WomenInLaw #JudicialAppointments #TransparencyInJustice