Election of Mexico's first indigenous supreme court justice in 170 years raises hope, scepticism
'It's our turn as Indigenous people... to make decisions in this country,' he said in the lead up to Sunday's (May 31, 2025) first judicial elections in Mexican history.
Now, the 52-year-old Aguilar, a lawyer from the Mixtec people in Mexico's southern Oaxaca state, will be the first Indigenous Supreme Court justice in nearly 170 years in the Latin American nation, according to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.
He could lead the High Court. The last Indigenous justice to do so was Mexican hero and former President Benito Juárez, who ran the court from 1857 to 1858.
For some, Mr. Aguilar has become a symbol of hope for 23 million Indigenous people long on the forgotten fringes of Mexican society. But others fiercely criticize his past, and worry that instead of representing them, he will instead stand with the ruling party, Morena, that ushered him onto the court.
Top vote getter in controversial contest
Supporters cite Mr. Aguilar's long history of working on Indigenous rights, while critics say that more recently he's helped push the governing party's agenda, including former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador's massive infrastructure projects, at the expense of Indigenous communities. Mr. Aguilar's team said he would not comment until after official results were confirmed.
'He's not an Indigenous candidate,' said Francisco López Bárcenas, a distinguished Mixtec lawyer from the same region as Mr. Aguilar, who once worked with him decades ago. He applauded the election of an Indigenous justice, but said, 'He's an Indigenous man who became a candidate.' Mr. Aguilar was elected in Mexico's first judicial election, a process that's been criticised as weakening Mexico's system of checks and balances.
Mr. López Obrador and his party overhauled the judicial system the populist leader was long at odds.
Instead of appointing judges through experience, voters elected judges to 2,600 federal, state and local positions. But the vote was marked by a very low voter turnout, about 13%.
Mr. López Obrador and his successor and protege President Claudia Sheinbaum claimed the election would cut corruption in the courts. Judges, watchdogs and political opposition called it a blatant attempt to use the party's political popularity to stack courts in their favour, and gain control of all three branches of Mexico's government.
While votes are still being counted in many races, the tally of results for nine Supreme Court justices came in first. The vast majority of the justices hold strong ties to the ruling party, handing Morena potential control over the high court. Mr. Aguilar's name was among those that appeared on pamphlets suggesting which candidates to vote for, which electoral authorities are investigating.
A focus on Indigenous rights
Mr. Aguilar scooped up more than 6 million votes, more than any other candidate, including three who currently serve on the Supreme Court. The victory opened the possibility of Mr. Aguilar not just serving on the court, but leading it.
Critics attributed his win to Mexico's highly popular president repeatedly saying she wanted an Indigenous judge on the Supreme Court in the lead up to the election. On Wednesday (June 4, 2025) she said she was thrilled he was on the court.
'He is a very good lawyer,' she said. 'I have the privilege of knowing his work not just on Indigenous issues, but in general. He has wide knowledge and is a modest and simple man.'
The Supreme Court has handed down decisions that, for example, establish the right of Indigenous people to be assisted by interpreters who speak their native language and defence attorneys in any legal process. But there remain significant outstanding issues like territorial disputes in cases of mega-projects.
Mr. Aguilar began his career in Oaxaca's capital, working for SERmixe, an organization advocating for Indigenous rights as a law student in his mid-20s.
Sofía Robles, a member of the organization remembers young Mr. Aguilar being passionate, choosing to be a lawyer to advocate for Indigenous communities often living in poverty and out of reach of the law.
'He had this conviction, and there were many things he wouldn't conform with,' 63-year-old Robles said. 'From the very beginning, he knew where he came from.'
Despite coming from a humble working-class family, he would work for the organisation for free after his law classes. He later worked there as a lawyer on agrarian issues for 13 years.
After the Zapatista uprising in 1994, a guerrilla movement fighting for Indigenous rights in southern Mexico, Mr. Aguilar worked to carry out constitutional reforms recognising the basic rights of Mexico's Indigenous people.
Ms. Robles said she believes he will bring that fight she saw in him to the Supreme Court.
'He gives us hope,' she said. 'Aguilar is going to be an example for future generations.'
Ties to governing party
But others like Romel González Díaz, a member of the Xpujil Indigenous Council in a Mayan community in southern Mexico, cast doubt on if Mr. Aguilar would truly act as a voice for their community.
Mr. Aguilar's work came under fire when he joined the government's National Institute of Indigenous Peoples at the beginning of Mr. López Obrador's administration in 2018. It was then that he began to work on a mega-project known as the Maya Train, fiercely criticised by environmentalists, Indigenous communities and even the United Nations.
The train, which runs in a rough loop around the Yucatan peninsula, has deforested large swathes of jungle and irreversibly damaged an ancient cave system sacred to Indigenous populations there.
Mr. Aguilar was tasked with investigating the potential impacts of the train, hearing the concerns of local Indigenous communities and informing them of the consequences.
That was when Mr. González Díaz met Mr. Aguilar, who arrived with a handful of government officials, who sat down for just a few hours with his small community in Xpujil, and provided sparse details about the negative parts of the project.
Mr. González Díaz's organisation was among many to take legal action against the government in an attempt to block train construction for not properly studying the project's impacts.
The environmental destruction left in the project's wake is something that continues to fuel his distrust for Mr. Aguilar.
'The concern with Hugo is: Who is he going to represent?' González Díaz said. 'Is he going to represent the [Morena] party or is he going to represent the Indigenous people?'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
20 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Corruption cases against govt officials: SC bats for striking balance
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday stressed on striking a balance to protect honest government servants discharging their official functions from frivolous complaints while ensuring corrupt officers were not shielded. Corruption cases against govt officials: SC bats for striking balance A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said if honest public servants were made vulnerable because of vexatious complaints, they would not function at all and this might lead to a "policy paralysis". The apex court was hearing submissions on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which mandates prior approval to start investigation against government officials in corruption cases. "Ultimately, a balance has to be struck. Honest officers in the discharge of their duties must be protected from frivolous or vexatious complaints. Second, dishonest officers need not be protected," the bench said. The apex court observed one should not go with an approach that every officer was honest or every officer was dishonest. It said government officers took decisions or made recommendations in discharge of their official duty and one couldn't say every decision was "tainted". The bench said a sword of police investigation couldn't be left hanging on the officers if he took a decision or made a recommendation in discharge of their official functions. "What is wrong with this provision ? We want to know why are you attacking it," the bench asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was appearing for petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation. Bhushan said the provision mandating prior sanction for even investigation or inquiry would effectively cripple the probe of corruption offences. He said safeguards were already there for protection of honest government officers. Bhushan referred to previous apex court verdicts which stressed on the need to make probe agencies independent. "It is the executive, which misuses. It is the political government which is usually corrupt," he said. The government could not only influence the decisions of public servants but could also influence the grant of sanction and whether some investigation should proceed and against whom, Bhushan added. "The political executive is there for the purpose of ensuring a particular policy being implemented. They would have made electoral promises. They want those promises to be implemented. They would have had certain schemes. They would have had certain programmes for implementation," the bench said. Bhushan, however, said, "We are today living in a situation in this country where unfortunately we are seeing gross miscarriage of justice across the board. We are seeing innocent people being arrested." He referred to cases probed by Enforcement Directorate against political leaders and claimed several such cases were dropped once the person being investigated joined the ruling party. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, objected to Bhushan's statement and said the issue before the court was concerning the Prevention of Corruption Act. "We are not addressing seminar of any NGO," Mehta said. The bench then asked Bhushan to restrict his submissions to the cases of public servants. "In all major decisions which government officers take, someone or the other will be dissatisfied," Mehta said. He said all aspects concerning Section 17A of the Act were discussed in Parliament. Mehta further said corruption couldn't be tolerated and there was a zero tolerance for it. Parliament while enacting Section 17A felt the need to insulate public servants from false and frivolous allegations, Mehta added. "Fearless governance is also a equally important part of rule of law," he said. Bhushan said the prior approval virtually put a fetter on the entire investigation. The bench observed it might also be possible that the officer, against whom the complaint was made, was not at all involved in the process or had nothing to do with the decision taken or the recommendation made. "Every complaint can't be opening the floodgates. There must be filtering," the top court said while clarifying it wasn't shielding the corrupt. Bhushan said, "If this section is allowed to remain in the statute book, I can guarantee that in almost no case of high level corruption, the permission will ever be granted by the government." The hearing would continue on August 6. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.


The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Lahar Singh alleges organised campaign by Congress against constitutional bodies like ECI and SC
Taking exception to Congress MLC B.K. Hariprasad's observations against the Supreme Court and other courts, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Lahar Singh Siroya has accused the Congress of taking up an organised propaganda under Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi against Constitutional institutions like Election Commission of India and Supreme Court. In a social media post, Mr. Singh said, 'It is unfortunate that Mr. Hariprasad has cast aspersions on the Supreme Court of India after it warned Mr. Rahul Gandhi for his remarks on the Indian army, on Monday.' Recalling Mr. Hariprasad's remarks, he said, 'In his Kannada X post, Mr. Hariprasad has said that the Supreme Court's remarks on Rahul Gandhi is indicative not just of the falling standards of the court, but is also of its support to dictatorial attitude.' Mr. Hariprasad also says that the court has disrespected a person who is recognised by our Constitution as shadow prime minister. How can someone who holds a constitutional post disrespect another person who holds a constitutional post, he says targeting the judge. At the end, he shockingly says the Supreme Court and some High Courts are making politically inspired observations and judgements in recent times.' 'Whether Mr. Hariprasad's comments constitute contempt of court is not for me to decide. But as a politician I recognise a very organised propaganda of the Congress party under Mr. Rahul Gandhi which is trying to assault institutions like the Election Commission of India and the Supreme Court of India. To save their party they want to spread lies and anarchy,' Mr. Singh alleged.


Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Better administration', says UP as Supreme Court questions haste behind Banke Bihari Temple ordinance
The Supreme Court on Monday hinted at referring to the Allahabad High Court a batch of petitions challenging the Uttar Pradesh government's 2025 Ordinance that effectively takes over the management of the revered Shri Banke Bihari Temple in Mathura-Vrindavan. The Uttar Pradesh government defended its ordinance on the Banke Bihari Temple's management in the Supreme Court, asserting its aim is to improve administration for devotees. The court questioned the ordinance's urgency and lack of stakeholder consultation, suggesting the High Court address its legality. The Supreme Court is considering an interim committee to oversee temple management, focusing on devotee interests. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Uttar Pradesh government on Tuesday defended its recent ordinance on the management of the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan , telling the Supreme Court that the move was aimed solely at improving the administration of the religious site, which draws lakhs of devotees every week.'The ordinance has nothing to do with the pending writ petition,' Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj told a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. 'There was a PIL filed for better administration of the temple before the high court and directions were passed.'The state's response came after the Supreme Court, on August 4, sharply criticised the manner in which the ordinance was brought, without hearing all stakeholders, and questioned the urgency shown by the government. The court had said it would keep in abeyance its earlier nod, granted on May 15, for the development of the temple corridor, pending a full Tuesday's hearing, the state handed over its proposal for temple administration to the court. The bench noted that the plan appeared to be the same as the one it had suggested on August Nataraj clarified that the 2025 ordinance was not connected to ongoing litigation over temple ownership, the bench said those arguments would be more appropriately addressed if the challenge to the ordinance is taken up in the high court. 'Your arguments may be good, but can be made when the challenge to the ordinance is relegated to the high court,' the bench ordinance has been challenged by the temple's existing management committee, which has questioned the legality of the state taking over the shrine's administration. The plea also seeks a recall of the May 15 order that permitted the state to move ahead with its development order had allowed the Uttar Pradesh government to use temple funds to buy five acres of land near the temple for creating a holding area. However, the top court had made it clear that the land must be acquired in the name of the deity or the trust, not the advocate Kapil Sibal , appearing for the petitioners, requested time to present suggestions on the administration of the temple. The bench agreed and posted the matter for further hearing on August the Supreme Court reiterated that it was not currently ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance. 'Let the high court look into it,' the bench said, adding that it was considering appointing an interim committee, possibly led by a retired judge, to oversee the temple's management in the interest of plea before the court, filed by advocate Tanvi Dubey on behalf of the temple's management committee, opposes the Uttar Pradesh Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust Ordinance, 2025, under which the state assumes control over the administration of one of Mathura's most iconic temples.