Recent verdicts and judicial pronouncements have cast a long shadow over the treasured principles of justice and the rule of law. The apex court’s decision to uphold the revocation of Article 370 in Kashmir, despite acknowledging its illegal means, raises troubling questions about the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights and freedoms. What once was an example of independence and impartiality now appears to be giving way to the pressures of political expediency and government influence. The ruling elite’s increasing consolidation of power has come at the cost of civil liberties and fundamental rights.
Despite occasional assertions of constitutionalism, the judiciary’s responses have often fallen short of addressing the systemic challenges posed by authoritarianism and executive overreach. While the Collegium system was designed to insulate the judiciary from political interference, recent developments suggest a blurring of lines between the judiciary and the ruling government. The present ruling government’s advocacy to a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), while ostensibly aimed at fostering uniformity and equality, raises concerns about its compatibility with the principles of secularism and religious pluralism. The judges’ apparent alignment with political agendas and the lure of post-retirement positions further blur the lines between the executive and judicial branches.
Moreover, the staggering backlog of cases has hampered public trust and confidence in the judiciary’s ability to deliver justice. Millions of cases languish in courts for years, with overworked judges struggling to cope with the sheer volume of litigation. The plight of pre-trial detainees, many of whom are held indefinitely without trial, reflects the systemic failures and injustices that pervade the legal system. In such times, bulldozer politics has become a vigorous symbol of political repression and misuse of power. The planned destruction of properties and cultural heritage reflects a callous disregard for the rule of law and dignity. Despite widespread condemnation, the courts have remained silent on these grievous violations, raising questions about their role in upholding constitutional values and protecting the rights of marginalised communities.
Over the past decade, our country has witnessed a considerable rise in violence against women, widening communal tensions and a massive increase in economic inequality that has led to a sharp decline in employment opportunities and a growing sense of frustration among citizens. Successive governments have failed to address these pressing issues effectively, exacerbating the sentiment of anger and disillusionment among the youth. This growing intolerance and frustration have manifested in incidents of violence and a disturbing trend of supporting perpetrators of violent acts.
The restrictions on freedom of speech have also intensified, with the police targeting young university students, journalists and private citizens who called for change. Instances of mob lynching and public celebrations of violence have become disturbingly common, reflecting a broader breakdown of social norms and values. Politicians, instead of condemning such acts unequivocally, have often sought to exploit them for political gain, deepening social divisions and undermining the faith of democracy.
In the words of the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud,
“The people who work the constitution may go terribly wrong and sometimes they do as when we jail a cartoonist for sedition or when jail instead of bail is given to a blogger who is critical of our religious architecture. When a mob lynches a person for the food that she or he eats, it is the Constitution which is lynched. When we deny human beings the power of love for reasons of religion or caste, it is the Constitution made to weep.”
Source: Barandbench
