High Court Judge Decries Normalisation of Corruption After Ram Temple Donation Theft

When Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court took pen to paper, he did not hold back. In a sprawling 51‑page opinion, the judge warned that the public’s shrug over the alleged theft of donations meant for the Ram temple in Ayodhya is nothing short of a moral collapse.

He began by noting, almost with a sigh, that “nothing can shame people who remain unfazed by the theft at the Ram temple which epitomises the nadir of Indians’ integrity.” The phrase stuck, because it captures a growing fatigue – a sense that corruption has become so routine that only being caught provokes a gasp.

To make his point, Justice Sreedharan didn’t just point fingers at the few bad apples. He turned his gaze to the whole system, recalling the spate of “bulldozer justice” cases where houses are razed the moment a complaint is lodged. "The demolitions continue with impunity, as if the Supreme Court’s verdicts do not exist," he wrote, adding that such actions feed a “perceived blood lust” in a society starved for quick, visceral retribution.

He reminded the court – and the nation – that India is languishing at 91 out of 182 countries in the Transparency International 2025 ranking. “That ranking does not shame us,” he said, a thinly‑veiled jab at the complacency that lets such rankings slide by unnoticed.

Perhaps the most startling suggestion came later, when the judge mused that the state might need to rethink the very fabric of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. “If the State is truly serious about curbing corruption, it should consider amending the Act to include the death penalty for those convicted of corruption,” he urged, pushing the envelope on punitive measures.

His critique did not spare the officials who, in his view, are “particeps criminis” – active participants in the crime – by turning a blind eye to illegal constructions, accepting bribes, and then handing over the resulting houses to unsuspecting buyers who face sudden eviction decades later.

All of this, Justice Sreedharan warned, fuels an ever‑widening chasm between the haves and the have‑nots, setting the stage for civil unrest. The message was clear: corruption is not a minor inconvenience; it is a threat to the very fabric of democracy.

Whether his call for a death‑penalty amendment will ever see the light of day remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that his fiery words have added a fresh, human tone to a debate that has long been mired in bureaucratic jargon.