A former Indian Chief Justice has accepted an offer of a seat in the country's Parliament, sparking allegations that he has gravely damaged the judiciary's credibility.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, 65, who retired four months ago, was Chief Justice at India's Supreme Court for 13 months.
On Tuesday, India's President nominated him to the Upper House of Parliament, the Rajya Sabha, under a provision that lets certain specialists be directly appointed without being elected.
Former judges usually do not comment on legislative appointments. But two former Supreme Court colleagues of Justice Gogoi have criticised the move.
Justice Madan Lokur said the nomination "redefines the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary", and Justice Kurian Joseph said the acceptance of the nomination had "shaken the confidence of the common man in the judiciary's independence".
Justice Gogoi said he accepted the offer because he had "a strong conviction that the legislature and the judiciary must at some point of time work together for nation-building".
But Delhi High Court's former Chief Justice A. P. Shah, calling the move the "death knell for power separation" between the government and the judiciary, said: "The message it sends to the judiciary as a whole is that if you give judgments that are favourable to the executive, you will be rewarded… It is a blatant quid pro quo."
During his tenure, Justice Gogoi delivered several judgments with far-reaching consequences. Many were key cases with important political stakes for the same government that had nominated him.
He headed a five-judge bench that awarded a disputed religious site in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh state to Hindus who wanted to build a temple.
The Babri mosque that stood on the site had been destroyed by Hindu nationalist mobs in 1992.
He also aggressively pushed for a register of citizens in his home state of Assam to identify undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants.
The process, which was completed last August, left out about 1.9 million people, who remain at risk of being rendered stateless.
And he also headed a bench that brought the office of the Chief Justice of India under the country's Right to Information Act.
Legal commentators point out that the judge's tenure was marred by his preference for important case details to be submitted to the court in secret sealed covers which would not be made public.
Legal analyst and author Gautam Bhatia wrote last year after Justice Gogoi's retirement: "His tenure will be remembered for the rise of the 'Executive Court', one which has made the Supreme Court indistinguishable from the executive."
The Supreme Court under Justice Gogoi was also accused of dragging its feet on several important issues, including on petitions challenging the government's lock-down and black-out in Kashmir, and questioning the lawfulness of new financial instruments that facilitated unlimited anonymous donations to political parties. Lawyer Karuna Nundy tweeted: "It's just so sad. The brazenness of it. Destroying constitutional propriety for a measly Rajya Sabha seat."
Last April, Justice Gogoi was accused of sexual harassment by a former Supreme Court employee amid the #MeToo movement.
At a special court hearing convened soon after the allegation, he sat with two other judges, denied the claims and suggested they were part of a conspiracy against him. An in-house panel formed to look into the complaint said the charges were without substance.
India's judiciary has come under increasing criticism in recent months for allegedly enabling executive actions.
In February, Supreme Court Justice Arun Mishra praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a global conference, calling him a "versatile genius" and an "internationally acclaimed visionary".
Supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led central government have pointed out that previous governments had given seats in Parliament to former judges allegedly as a reward for favourable decisions.
However, this is the first instance of a direct nomination by the government.
Justice Gogoi will enter Parliament later this week, where opposition politicians are likely to raise questions.
On Wednesday, Ms Mahua Moitra, a Trinamool Congress Party legislator, wrote: "Every single principle of justice the former Chief Justice of India claimed to espouse in his judgments is today open to the most tragic of all presumptions - suspicion."
