The Supreme Court of India holds a powerful and unique position as the guardian of the Constitution. Its history is marked by landmark judgments that expanded civil liberties and emphasized social justice—such as rulings on LGBTQ+ rights, the ban on instant triple talaq, the decision allowing women’s entry into temples, and environmental protection. These judgments strengthened public faith in the judiciary as a “ray of hope.”
The core tension lies between the Court’s swift action on broad public and social concerns (often under Public Interest Litigations or PILs) and its alleged hesitation or prolonged deliberation in politically sensitive cases. This contradiction fuels the perception that while the Court is bold on social issues, it is hesitant when it comes to political accountability.
Key Issues Strengthening the Perception of Bias Toward the Ruling Party:
The sharpest criticism is the perception that when cases directly involve the ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), or its policies and leaders, the Court’s stance shifts. Critics point to several systemic and procedural issues suggesting that the Court, perhaps unintentionally, sides with the executive in high‑stakes political disputes.
1. Selective Docketing and Delays in Listing:
- Sensitivity and lack of hearings: Major constitutional challenges against government actions—such as the abrogation of Article 370, the electoral bonds scheme, or the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)—have seen significant and unexplained delays in listing or adjudication by constitutional benches.
- Critics argue that if these petitions had been against opposition parties or social activists, the Court might have taken suo motu cognizance or begun hearings immediately.
- Master of the Roster Power: The Chief Justice of India holds the power of “Master of the Roster,” giving them discretion in assigning cases. This control is cited as a possible route for selective listing, where politically sensitive cases can be delayed until the political heat subsides.
2. Judicial Weakness and Evasion
'Judicial evasion' occurs when the Supreme Court sidesteps its constitutional duty—delaying or avoiding rulings on politically sensitive cases to escape direct confrontation with the government. Critics argue that the Court frequently invokes principles such as separation of powers and judicial restraint to justify avoiding direct engagement with the executive on controversial laws or policies. This self‑preservation manifests as judicial evasion, where constitutional responsibility is set aside to avoid conflict.
Executive’s free pass: In political matters, under the guise of “judicial restraint,” the Court has often refused to intervene in government policies. The opposition contends that this restraint amounts to deliberate inaction, effectively granting the BJP government a free hand to cross constitutional limits, secure in the knowledge that immediate judicial scrutiny will not follow.
Understanding Contributing Factors:
The perception of bias or lethargy often rests at the intersection of systemic, structural, and institutional challenges:
1. Executive Leverage in Appointments and Post‑Retirement Roles
- Post‑retirement appointments: The practice of judges accepting lucrative government positions (such as Governor or heads of tribunals/commissions) immediately after retirement has been widely criticized. This raises concerns about whether, during their tenure, judgments in cases involving the ruling party were indirectly influenced by the prospect of post‑retirement benefits.
- Collegium system: Despite the Court’s reliance on the collegium system for judicial appointments, the executive retains power to approve, reject, or delay appointments, creating subtle leverage.
2. Alleged Contradictions in Granting Immediate Relief
- Quick relief for government officials: It has been observed that when central government officials or agencies face setbacks in opposition‑ruled state courts, the Supreme Court often lists their petitions quickly and grants interim protection.
- Contradiction: This contrast—silence or delay in cases against the government, but urgency in defending it—raises serious questions about judicial impartiality.
3. Pending Cases and Docket Overload
- Sheer volume: The Supreme Court is heavily burdened with thousands of pending cases.
- Priority dilemma: Social rights and public interest issues are often prioritized due to urgency, while complex political cases requiring long hearings are pushed down the list. This feeds the narrative of political prioritization.
Cases Where Delay Sparked Criticism:
“In India today, democracy’s loudest battles are fought in silence—inside the Supreme Court. The majority of pending cases are routine disputes, but a handful of political cases—where government accountability is directly at stake—remain pending for years. These delays strike the deepest blow to democracy. Six major cases against the government wait for justice, but analysts call it judicial evasion: when courts whisper instead of ruling, and citizens wonder if independence is just an illusion.”
| Case | Allegation/Political Sensitivity | Point of Criticism (Delay/Inaction) | Final Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electoral Bonds | Impacted ruling party funding and electoral transparency. | Petitions pending for years. | 2024: Declared unconstitutional. |
| Abrogation of Article 370 | Challenged government’s constitutional move in J&K. | 4 years’ wait for bench. | 2023: Decision upheld. |
| Misuse of ED/CBI | Alleged targeting of opposition leaders. | No systemic ruling, only bail relief. | Ongoing. |
| Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) | Criticized as discriminatory against Muslims. | Petitions pending since 2019. | No ruling yet. |
| Farm Laws repeal petitions | Linked to mass protests and federalism concerns. | Petitions linger despite repeal. | Pending/partially infructuous. |
| Delhi Riots–UAPA Bail Cases | Activists accused under anti‑terror law for protest speeches. | Bail pleas delayed for years. | Ongoing. |
Why These Six Matter:
- They directly involve government power—funding, constitutional changes, citizenship, federalism, and free speech.
- Their delays or cautious handling fuel the perception of bias toward the ruling party.
- They show the contrast: bold rulings on social issues vs. hesitation on political accountability.
- Each case has citizen consequences: voters denied transparency, minorities left in limbo, federalism weakened, activists silenced.
- Together, they represent the soul of democracy under trial inside the Supreme Court.
Special Commentary: Less‑Discussed Layers:
- “Constitutional Silence”: At times, the Supreme Court indirectly grants the executive a free pass by not ruling on constitutional questions. This silence impacts democracy as much as an explicit judgment (e.g., years of silence on electoral bonds).
- Contempt Powers vs Accountability: Though the Court holds contempt powers, it rarely uses them when the government or its officials prolong proceedings, reinforcing perceptions of judicial inaction.
- Bench Composition and Ideological Leaning: Which judges sit on sensitive cases is often contentious. Lack of transparency in bench composition adds to criticism.
- Regional vs National Cases Contradiction: When central officials petition against state governments, hearings are immediate. But when petitions challenge the central government, the Court cites “constitutional complexity” and delays. This double standard frustrates citizens.
- Judicial Backlog as Political Tool: The backlog is not merely administrative; it can be politically used. Sensitive cases are buried in the backlog to maintain the status quo.
- Media and Public Perception: Uneven media coverage influences perception. Progressive rulings on social issues are celebrated, but silence on political matters is not scrutinized with equal depth.
Conclusion: Crisis of Perception and Trust:
The direct impact on democracy is clear: delays on electoral bonds deprived voters of transparency; prolonged silence on Article 370 left Kashmiris in legal uncertainty; inaction on investigative agencies denied opposition leaders judicial protection. The Supreme Court’s real test lies not in thousands of routine cases, but in those few political pendings where the soul of democracy is at stake.
In truth, the lack of satisfactory outcomes or timely hearings in cases involving the ruling party has strengthened perceptions of bias, leaving a dark stain on judicial impartiality. In high‑stakes political matters, this alleged inaction’s greatest casualty is public trust. The gap between expectation (the judiciary as the ultimate guardian of constitutional rights) and reality (hesitation when government power is challenged) erodes faith in democracy itself.
To preserve its fundamental role as the final check on executive power, the Supreme Court must:
- Increase transparency in listing cases and bench allocation (Master of the Roster).
- Reconsider policies on post‑retirement appointments for judges.
- Establish clear timelines for hearing and deciding.
0 Comments