When Courts Normalize Servitude it is Colonial mindset.
🏛️ Introduction: Colonial Ghosts in Contemporary Courts
British Colonial rule ended in India in 1947 but the mindset of institutions has not changed. A recent judgement of Andhra Pradesh High Court has sparked fresh debate on the subject. Judiciary in India not only fascinates the British, they also emulate Colonial British Judiciary in their everyday conduct.
The recent Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling has reignited debates around labor dignity and administrative ethics. By legitimizing domestic duties assigned to court staff at judges’ residences, the judgment appears to resurrect a colonial legacy once thought buried. This post examines how such institutional practices mirror British-era servitude, where power masked itself as tradition. First of all, to provide Court staff at the residences of judges, at the cost of taxpayer, is itself questionable.
🔙 British Rule & Domestic Labor: A Historical Blueprint
- British officials, during colonial rule, routinely employed Indian subordinates for household chores.
- Colonial era texts like The Complete Indian Housekeeper and Cook institutionalized the domestic management of “native” workers.
- Labor was racialized and gendered, often coerced without formal protections in colonial era.
- Colonial courts seldom intervened, preserving imperial domestic control. For them dignity of native was not an issue at all for them to bother about.
These systems blurred the lines between professional duty and personal service—a trend troublingly echoed in today’s judiciary.
⚖️ The AP High Court Judgment: Service or Servitude?
- High Court upheld the practice of assigning office subordinates to domestic tasks at judges’ homes.
- Interpreted the 1992 administrative circular as non-exhaustive, allowing wide latitude in task assignments.
- Dismissed employees’ concerns around harassment and overwork, redirecting them to internal grievance channels.
Such reasoning not only normalizes servitude but institutionalizes it within the framework of judicial legitimacy.
🔍 Parallels in Power: Why This Echoes Colonial Logic
| Colonial Era | Judicial Present |
|---|---|
| Household labor embedded in governance | Domestic work embedded in judicial roles |
| No formal boundaries between professional and personal labor | Job descriptions flexed to allow personal service |
| Servants lacked agency and visibility | Subordinates’ grievances dismissed as administrative |
| Imperial tradition justified domestic servitude | Judicial tradition legitimizes similar duties |
🧠 Philosophical Lens: Aham Brahmasmi vs. Bureaucratic Dharma
India’s philosophical heritage reveres dignity, unity, and self-awareness. Colonial way of though process must end. Judicial institutions must embody dharma—not merely legal interpretation, but ethical responsibility. Assigning domestic labor to court staff undermines these ideals and erodes trust in judicial transparency and it’s duty to spread egalitarianism in society.
📌 Conclusion: Reform Beyond Semantics
This isn’t about housekeeping—it’s about hierarchy. If we’re serious about institutional reform, we must confront how post-colonial structures inherit colonial logic. Judicial introspection is long overdue on this aspect as well. Gandhi posed an example about 100 years back by cleaning his own toilet. The Honorable Judges can start by doing their household chores themselves.
📚 References & Further Reading
- Nayar, P. K. – The Colonial Home: Managing Objects and Servants in British India
- Haskins & Sen – Regulation and Domestic Service in Colonial Histories
- Pooja, P. – Delhi, Domestic Service and Women from 1911 to 1926
- Chakraborty, S. – From Bibis to Ayahs: Sexual Labour and Domestic Politics of Empire
- Ghosh, D. – Household Crimes and Domestic Order in Colonial Calcutta
- AP High Court Judgment – July 2025