The sight of four seniormost Supreme Court justices addressing the press to let the nation know of the deep rot that lies at the heart of the Indian judiciary may appear an anathema to anyone entrenched in the legal profession. After all, the legal fraternity is a closed brotherhood whose secrets remain well guarded. Secrecy in key matters, according to traditional judicial wisdom, is the foundation of public confidence in the judiciary.

It is this widely accepted traditional wisdom that was under siege at the press conference addressed by Justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur and Joseph. To understand what it was about and what its ramifications are, it would be worthwhile to consider what it was not.

First, the letter written to the Chief Justice of India by the four judges was not about any one case alone. Contrary to popular interpretation, misgivings about the functioning of the judiciary were not simply about the assignment of the case demanding a probe into the death of Judge Loya or the medical college corruption case that had rocked the judiciary last year. To read it as such would be to belittle a problem that is inherently structural.

Similarly, it was not simply a revolt against the present Chief Justice of India. While the letter alleges that the chief justice chose benches “without rational basis” and on the basis of “preference”, it does not unduly dwell on his personal actions. This is clearly deliberate – the focus of this exercise, as emphasised by Justice Gogoi in the press conference, ought not to be sidetracked into examining the personal probity of the Chief Justice of India, but rather the integrity of the institution that he heads.

The letter and the press conference, both in form and substance, were an open challenge to the secrecy of judicial functioning, that is unfortunately its hallmark today. Be it in appointment of judges where the collegium decides on candidates without an established set of criteria, or in assigning of cases to judges where the Chief Justice of India is the unquestioned master of the roster, secrecy is all-pervasive in the functioning of the judiciary.

The reason for its pervasiveness is not accidental – it is considered a virtue by several senior lawyers who have for decades been the Court’s permanent conscience keepers. This is best exemplified by the leading doyen of the Bar, Fali Nariman who, in 2016, provided an unsolicited suggestion to Justice Chelameswar to resign rather than strive for transparency, while remaining a senior judge. This was not one-off – when faced with the grim spectacle of two benches of the Supreme Court squaring off in the recent medical college corruption case, he said, “The less we speak about it, the better.”

The shock treatment of the press conference by senior justices, it is hoped, will force Fali Nariman and other grandees of the profession to reconsider their view. For a Court, which partly at their prodding, has become a public interest Court, determining questions of governance of far-reaching importance, secrecy in any aspect of its functioning was never a realistic option to ensure public confidence. For too long, the Supreme Court has functioned this way, carefully brushing under the carpet any instance of abuse of power or rejecting on specious grounds genuine reform such as the NJAC. The skeletons are now inevitably tumbling out of the closet.

Above all, the press conference was a testament to the power of democracy. Judges, perhaps on the strength of their moral authority, have often functioned orthogonally to democracy, speaking truth to power without having the truth spoken back to them. At the press conference, the four judges, in order to remain true to their consciences, spoke to their fellow citizens with an appeal to save the judiciary. This was an appeal to democracy to get to work, to fix what private entreaties and meetings failed to fix.

Undoubtedly the next few weeks and months are going to be difficult ones for the judiciary, as it will be the subject of strident public debate and structural reform. Such is the way democracy functions. But the new Supreme Court that will undoubtedly emerge from this scalding process will be stronger, more transparent and will function like a court in a constitutional democracy, rather than one above it.