The appointment of Advocate Aarti Arun Sathe as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court has ignited a significant political controversy in Maharashtra, raising fundamental questions about judicial independence and the separation of powers in India’s democratic framework. Sathe, who served as a Maharashtra BJP spokesperson until January 2024, was officially appointed on August 13, 2025, following the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation on July 28, 2025. The opposition has strongly criticized this appointment, arguing that her recent political affiliations could compromise judicial impartiality, while the BJP maintains that her appointment is purely merit-based and that she severed all party ties well before the recommendation.
Gothic architectural details of the historic Bombay High Court building in Mumbai featuring a justice statue atop a turret
Background and Professional Profile
Aarti Arun Sathe comes from a distinguished family deeply embedded in India’s legal and political landscape. Born into a middle-class Maharashtrian family involved in the legal profession, she has witnessed courts, cases, debates, and legal drama since her childhood in Mumbai. Her father, Arun Sathe, is a prominent senior counsel specializing in taxation laws and has been an active member of both the RSS and BJP, serving as a national executive member of the party. Notably, Arun Sathe is the elder brother of former Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan.
Aarti Sathe’s professional credentials are substantial, spanning over two decades of legal experience. She completed her legal education at the prestigious Government Law College, Mumbai, and subsequently built a specialized practice in direct and indirect taxation matters. Her expertise encompasses complex tax disputes, and she has regularly appeared before various forums including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
During her early career, Sathe worked with the Economic Law Practice (ELP) and was part of senior lawyer Percy Pardiwala’s chamber, gaining valuable experience in taxation law. She has also handled matrimonial disputes before the Bombay High Court and has argued cases in the Supreme Court and other High Courts across the country. Her specialization extends to the evolving legal regime on cryptocurrency taxation, reflecting her adaptability to contemporary legal challenges.
Political Involvement and Timeline
Timeline of key events in the Aarti Sathe judicial appointment controversy
Sathe’s political involvement with the BJP became prominent when she was officially appointed as the spokesperson of the Maharashtra BJP in February 2023. However, sources indicate that her association with the party dates back further, with appearances on television channels as a BJP spokesperson documented as early as 2017-2018. A screenshot from her LinkedIn profile showed her appointment as spokesperson of the Maharashtra BJP in February 2023.
In her capacity as a BJP spokesperson, Sathe frequently appeared in media debates discussing issues related to Mumbai, including alleged mismanagement in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the condition of dilapidated buildings in the city, and road infrastructure. She was also the head of the Mumbai BJP’s legal cell. In 2016, during a conversation with Mirror Now, she defended the government’s demonetisation policy, arguing it would help clean up corruption in BMC and MHADA.
Significantly, Sathe had spoken against the Maha Vikas Aghadi government in 2021 when Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan was arrested in a drug bust, accusing then cabinet minister Nawab Malik of trying to influence the case. These public positions and statements have become central to the opposition’s concerns about her potential judicial impartiality.
On January 6, 2024, Sathe submitted formal resignation letters addressed to Ashish Shelar, Mumbai BJP chief, and Chandrasekhar Bawankule, then Maharashtra BJP chief. In these letters, she resigned from her positions as BJP Mumbai spokesperson, head of the BJP Mumbai Legal Cell, and from the primary membership of the party, citing “personal and professional reasons”. According to BJP sources, her appointment as spokesperson was described as “symbolic” rather than a regular active role like other office-bearers.
The Supreme Court Collegium’s Recommendation
The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and comprising other senior judges, recommended Sathe’s appointment on July 28, 2025. The collegium recommended three advocates for elevation as additional judges of the Bombay High Court: Ajit Bhagwanrao Kadethankar, Sushil Manohar Ghodeswar, and Aarti Arun Sathe.
The collegium system operates under the Memorandum of Procedure established through various Supreme Court judgments, particularly the Second and Third Judges Cases of 1993 and 1998 respectively. Under this system, the Chief Justice of India, along with four senior-most judges, forms the collegium that recommends appointments to the higher judiciary. For High Court appointments, the process typically begins with the High Court collegium’s recommendation, which is then reviewed by the Supreme Court collegium before being forwarded to the Central government.
The appointment process involves extensive background verification and consideration of factors including merit, integrity, experience, and the candidate’s professional standing. The collegium’s decision-making process remains largely opaque, with limited transparency about the deliberations and criteria used for specific appointments.
Opposition Criticism and Political Response
The announcement of Sathe’s recommendation triggered an immediate and sharp response from opposition parties in Maharashtra. Rohit Pawar, MLA and General Secretary of the NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), led the criticism by posting on social media platform X, stating that “the appointment of a person who advocates for the ruling party from a public platform as a judge is the greatest blow to democracy”.
Pawar questioned the fundamental principles at stake, asking: “When a person appointed as a judge in a high court has a political background and has held a position in the ruling party, who can guarantee that the process of delivering justice will not be tainted by political bias?”. He further argued that such appointments undermine the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution and could turn the judiciary into a “political arena”.
The Maharashtra Congress also strongly condemned the appointment, with state president Harshwardhan Sapkal stating that “democracy and the Constitution have been systematically sidelined in the country since 2014”. The party posted on X, calling it “the height of shamelessness” and alleging that “BJP spokespersons are being selected as judges” in what they termed a “cruel mockery of democracy”.
Anish Gawande, national spokesperson of NCP (SP), expressed concerns about the timing and implications, stating: “To have somebody who has been the spokesperson of a political party, who has been the head of a legal cell of a political party until just a year ago, becoming a judge of the Bombay High Court… seems incredibly concerning”. He warned that such appointments represent a “short-sighted decision” that could harm the independence of the judiciary.
The controversy reached Parliament when Congress MP Hibi Eden moved an adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha on August 6, 2025, seeking immediate discussion on the appointment. Eden highlighted concerns about the judge’s previous political affiliations and argued that this “could compromise perceptions of impartiality and judicial independence”. The motion stated that the appointment “has sparked controversy and raises questions about the judiciary’s independence and potential politicization”.
BJP’s Defense and Counter-Arguments
The Maharashtra BJP mounted a robust defense of Sathe’s appointment, with chief spokesperson Keshav Upadhye dismissing the allegations as “baseless”. The party’s primary arguments centered on two key points: first, that Sathe had resigned from all party positions and primary membership well before the collegium’s recommendation, and second, that her appointment was “purely merit-based and within the legal framework”.
Navnath Ban, BJP Maharashtra media head, posted copies of Sathe’s resignation letter on social media to counter the opposition’s claims. The BJP emphasized that the recommendation came “almost a year-and-a-half after she resigned from the party” and insisted that “she has no connection with the party”.
To strengthen their position, BJP leaders cited historical precedents of politicians being appointed as judges. Upadhye specifically mentioned several examples, including Justice Baharul Islam, who was appointed to the High Court after his Rajya Sabha term ended in 1972 and later became a Supreme Court judge under the Indira Gandhi government. Other examples cited included Justices K.S. Hegde, Aftab Alam, and F.I. Rebello.
The party also pointed to the precedent set by Sathe’s own father, Arun Sathe, who was appointed as a part-time member of the SEBI board in 2015 despite his active BJP connections. At that time, Arun Sathe had defended his appointment by stating: “I have been an active member of the BJP. I was its National Executive member. I am an RSS man. So, what’s wrong in it?”.
Legal and Constitutional Perspectives
The controversy has raised important questions about the constitutional framework governing judicial appointments and the balance between political experience and judicial independence. Legal experts have offered varied perspectives on the appropriateness of appointing individuals with recent political backgrounds to the judiciary.
Justice (retired) B.G. Kolse-Patil, a former Bombay High Court judge, strongly criticized the appointment, stating: “It looks like the Supreme Court Collegium has come under BJP pressure”. He questioned how someone who had served as a political spokesperson could deliver impartial judgments, particularly against the same party she had represented.
However, constitutional law experts note that the Constitution does not explicitly disqualify persons with prior political affiliations from appointment to the superior judiciary. Article 124 and Article 217 of the Constitution set out the qualifications for Supreme Court and High Court judges respectively, focusing on legal experience rather than political background.
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, had attempted to create a more transparent and participatory appointment process. The Court’s rejection of NJAC reaffirmed the collegium system and emphasized that judicial independence required the judiciary to have primacy in appointments.
Several senior lawyers have defended Sathe’s professional credentials while acknowledging the political sensitivity. One senior lawyer, quoted anonymously, stated: “Those attacking her should judge her professionally. She has carved out her identity through hard work. Also, she will be on probation and will have to prove herself while her judgments would be closely watched by everyone”.
Broader Implications for Judicial Independence
The Sathe appointment controversy reflects broader tensions in India’s judicial system regarding the balance between merit, political neutrality, and institutional independence. The debate touches on fundamental questions about whether prior political involvement should disqualify otherwise qualified lawyers from judicial appointment, and what constitutes an appropriate “cooling-off period” between political activity and judicial service.
The controversy occurs against the backdrop of ongoing concerns about the politicization of judicial appointments in India. Critics argue that the collegium system, while designed to ensure judicial independence, lacks transparency and accountability. The system has faced criticism for its opaque decision-making process and limited public scrutiny of appointment criteria.
The appointment also highlights the challenge of maintaining public confidence in judicial impartiality. As Rohit Pawar noted, “We don’t have doubt over her merit or capability. But looking at the current political scenario, question arises if common people will get justice?”. This sentiment reflects broader public concerns about whether judges with recent political backgrounds can be perceived as truly neutral arbiters.
The timing of the appointment, coming during a period of heightened political polarization, has amplified these concerns. Opposition parties have argued that such appointments are part of a broader pattern of “capturing” democratic institutions, while the ruling party maintains that merit should be the sole criterion for judicial appointments.youtube
Current Status and Future Implications
Following the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation, the Central government officially notified Sathe’s appointment on August 13, 2025. The notification, issued under Article 224(1) of the Constitution, appointed her as an additional judge for a period of two years with effect from the date she assumes charge.
The appointment brings the Bombay High Court’s strength to 69 judges, comprising 50 permanent and 19 additional judges, though this remains well below the sanctioned strength of 94 judges. The Bombay High Court is the second largest in the country after the Allahabad High Court.
As an additional judge, Sathe will be on a probationary period during which her performance will be closely monitored. Additional judges can be confirmed as permanent judges based on their performance and the court’s requirements. This probationary period may provide some reassurance to critics who have questioned her appointment.
The controversy is likely to have broader implications for future judicial appointments. The opposition has indicated its intention to continue monitoring and challenging appointments that they perceive as politically motivated. The debate has also renewed calls for greater transparency in the collegium system and clearer guidelines regarding the appointment of individuals with recent political backgrounds.
Precedents and Historical Context
The appointment of individuals with political backgrounds to judicial positions is not unprecedented in Indian jurisprudence. Several notable examples exist of politicians transitioning to judicial roles, though the timing and circumstances vary significantly.
Justice K.S. Hegde served as a Congress MLA before his judicial appointment and later became Chief Justice of India. Justice Baharul Islam was appointed to the Bombay High Court after his Rajya Sabha term ended in 1972 and subsequently became a Supreme Court judge. Justice F.I. Rebello was a Janata Party MLA in Goa before his appointment as a Bombay High Court judge in 1996, eventually becoming Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court.
However, critics argue that the current political climate and the proximity of Sathe’s political involvement to her judicial appointment make this case distinct from historical precedents. The one-year gap between her resignation from the BJP and the collegium’s recommendation is considered insufficient by opposition leaders who argue for a longer cooling-off period.
Conclusion
The appointment of Aarti Sathe as a Bombay High Court judge represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate over judicial independence and political influence in India’s judicial system. While her professional qualifications are substantial, with over two decades of specialized legal experience in taxation law, the controversy surrounding her recent political affiliations raises important questions about public perception of judicial impartiality.
The case highlights the tension between merit-based appointments and the imperative to maintain public confidence in an independent judiciary. As India’s democratic institutions face increasing scrutiny, the resolution of this controversy may set important precedents for future judicial appointments and the balance between political experience and judicial independence.
The Supreme Court Collegium’s decision to recommend Sathe despite her recent political background suggests confidence in the existing appointment framework, while the opposition’s sustained criticism reflects broader concerns about institutional capture and democratic governance. As Sathe begins her tenure as an additional judge, her performance and judicial conduct will likely be closely watched by all stakeholders, making her appointment a crucial test case for the intersection of politics and judiciary in contemporary India.
The outcome of this controversy may ultimately influence how future appointments are evaluated and whether additional safeguards or cooling-off periods are necessary to maintain public trust in judicial independence while ensuring that qualified candidates are not unfairly excluded from consideration for judicial positions.
