8. Institutional Ethics and Constitutional Symbolism

e. Statue of Justice and the Ideal of Judicial Neutrality

Notes for Students

Context of the Article: The Chief Justice of India unveiled a newly designed statue of Lady Justice within the premises of the Supreme Court of India. The new sculpture replaces the traditional Western depiction with an Indianised version—draped in a saree, with uncovered eyes, holding a balance in one hand and the Constitution of India in the other. This change, though symbolic, has triggered meaningful conversations about institutional ethics, constitutional symbolism, and the philosophy of justice in India’s democratic setup.

UPSC Paper Topic Belongs To:
GS Paper II – Indian Constitution: Judiciary, Justice Delivery System
GS Paper IV – Ethics in Governance: Impartiality, Symbolism, Institutional Integrity
Essay – Justice, Indianisation of Institutions, Democratic Culture

Dimensions of the Article:

1. Symbolism of the Statue: From Roman Justice to Indian Constitutionalism
2. Redefining Judicial Neutrality and Responsiveness
3. Institutional Ethics and the Visual Culture of Justice
4. Pendency and Performance: Ethics of Delay in the Indian Judiciary
5. Balancing Tradition and Transformation in Legal Institutions

Why in News
In November 2024, the Supreme Court of India unveiled a redesigned Statue of Justice, replacing the classical Roman-inspired depiction with an Indianised version. The new statue, unveiled by the Chief Justice of India, is represented as a woman in a saree, without the blindfold, holding scales and the Indian Constitution—a departure from the traditional symbolism of Justitia, who holds a sword and is blindfolded.

The redesign invites renewed public discourse on the evolving meaning of justice, the ethical foundations of judicial institutions, and how symbols shape the perception of fairness, neutrality, and accountability in a constitutional democracy.

Features of the News

1. Traditional Symbolism and its Western Origins:
   1. The original image of Lady Justice draws from Roman mythology—Goddess Justitia.
   2. The blindfold, added in the Renaissance, was initially a critique of judicial corruption, later reinterpreted as symbolising impartiality.
   3. The scales represent a balanced evaluation of both sides in a dispute.
   4. The sword symbolises authority, decisiveness, and the power to enforce.
      
2. What Has Changed?
   1. The blindfold has been removed, indicating responsive justice rather than detached objectivity.
   2. The sword has been replaced with the Constitution of India, symbolising rights-based justice over retributive power.
   3. The saree-clad Lady Justice reflects cultural localisation and the need to decolonise institutional imagery in Indian jurisprudence.
      
3. Institutional Ethics and Symbolic Accountability:
   1. The change reflects a shift toward an ethically conscious judiciary, which must not only be impartial but also sensitive to the lived realities of Indian society.
   2. It aligns with constitutional morality, where justice is not only blind but also socially and morally aware.
      
4. The Crisis of Judicial Pendency:
   1. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (as of July 2025):
      • Over 5.1 crore cases are pending in Indian courts.
      • 78,000+ cases are pending before the Supreme Court alone, including several Constitution Bench matters.
   2. The symbolic change must be matched by ethical reforms, including ensuring timely justice, increasing transparency in judicial apointments, and institutionalising accountability.
      
5. Global and Indian Precedents in Legal Symbolism:
   1. Several countries have modified judicial symbols to reflect national values—South Africa replaced colonial-era statues post-apartheid.
   2. India’s move resonates with constitutional developments like the Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32), which position the judiciary as a protector of rights, not merely a punitive arm of the State.

Explainers

1. What is the symbolism behind removing the blindfold?

Traditionally, the blindfold in the image of Lady Justice represents impartiality—the idea that justice must be administered without fear, favour, or prejudice. It signals that the judiciary should remain neutral to extraneous influences such as power, wealth, or identity. However, in the Indian socio-legal context, the blindfold can also symbolise an inadvertent detachment from lived realities—especially of the marginalised, including Dalits, Adivasis, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and the economically vulnerable.

Removing the blindfold signifies an evolution in the philosophy of justice—one that goes beyond formal neutrality to embrace substantive fairness. It represents a morally awake judiciary, aware of the deep-seated structural inequalities and social injustices that persist despite constitutional guarantees. It is aligned with the idea of empathetic justice, where courts remain attentive to context and consequence rather than delivering judgments in abstraction.

This symbolism reflects the transition from a mechanistic application of law to conscious adjudication, where judicial reasoning is informed not just by legal doctrine but also by compassion and equity. Thus, unveiled eyes represent judicial sensitivity, complementing neutrality with ethical responsibility.

2. Why replace the sword with the Constitution?

The sword in classical depictions of justice signifies state power and enforcement capacity—the coercive authority of the law to punish wrongdoing. While necessary in maintaining rule of law, this image places emphasis on law as a tool of control.

By replacing the sword with the Constitution of India, the redesigned statue symbolises a decisive shift from retributive authority to constitutional guardianship. It highlights that justice must be derived from and restrained by the constitutional framework, particularly the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

The Constitution is not just a legal document but an ethical compact between the State and its citizens, articulating values like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Holding the Constitution instead of a weapon emphasises that courts must uphold rights-based justice, rooted in reason and due process, rather than being arbiters of power.

It also underscores the judiciary’s primary role as the interpreter and protector of constitutional morality, ensuring that every exercise of state power—legislative, executive, or judicial—aligns with democratic and ethical norms.

3. How does symbolism relate to Institutional Ethics?

Institutional ethics refers to the moral conduct, integrity, and public accountability of institutions, including how they are perceived by society. Symbols—such as statues, rituals, or language—are more than aesthetic choices; they reflect and influence the ethical identity of institutions.

The visual transformation of Lady Justice demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to aligning its symbolic representation with the values of inclusivity, cultural rootedness, and democratic constitutionalism. An Indianised, saree-clad justice figure holding the Constitution signals that judicial ethics are not abstract; they must be visible, relatable, and representative of the people the institution serves.

Moreover, in an era of rising public scepticism toward institutions, symbolic gestures help restore legitimacy and inspire civic trust. They act as public reminders of the institution’s constitutional obligations and moral commitments. However, such symbolism must be backed by institutional integrity in action—through transparent processes, reasoned judgments, and ethical conduct by judges and court officials.

4. Can symbolic change address systemic issues like pendency?

Symbols, though powerful, are not substitutes for institutional reform. While they shape perception and reaffirm values, systemic challenges such as judicial pendency, case backlog, inequitable access to justice, and lack of transparency in appointments require structural, administrative, and ethical intervention.

As of mid-2025, over 5 crore cases remain pending in Indian courts, with tens of thousands awaiting decisions in constitutional benches alone. This poses a serious threat to the maxim “justice delayed is justice denied,” eroding public confidence in the judiciary.

Therefore, while the new symbolism projects a vision of responsive and inclusive justice, it must be matched with actionable reforms:

• Increasing judicial vacancies and infrastructure,
• Expanding use of e-courts and digital case management,
• Institutionalising ethics training and sensitisation for judges,
• Ensuring regular publication of reasoned decisions and appointments.

In this light, symbolic change is meaningful, but only when it complements operational and ethical transformation. The convergence of ideals and implementation is key to realising the constitutional promise of justice.

Conclusion 

The unveiling of the Indianised Statue of Justice at the Supreme Court premises is not merely an aesthetic update—it is a symbolic intervention in the moral imagination of the judiciary. By replacing the blindfold with conscious engagement, and the sword with the Constitution, the statue echoes a vision of justice that is empathetic, accessible, and rights-based.

However, this symbolism must not remain ornamental. With millions of pending cases, judicial reforms in terms of capacity building, digitisation, ethical training, and procedural transparency are urgently needed. As Ambedkar warned, mere formal equality without social democracy and institutional accountability would render justice hollow.

To fulfil the promise embedded in its new symbols, the Indian judiciary must now match ethical ideals with institutional action.