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 Contradiction: Courage on Social Issues vs. Hesitation on Political Accountability
However, a recurring and significant criticism focuses on the Court’s performance in cases that directly challenge the central government. 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, silence, or prolonged deliberation (judicial evasion) in politically sensitive cases.
In these politically charged matters, often brought by the opposition, the Court is frequently accused of bias or undue delay. This contradiction fuels the perception that while the Court is bold in protecting fundamental rights in social issues, it is noticeably cautious or hesitant when it comes to holding the executive branch politically accountable.
Key Issues Fueling the Perception of Bias
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 Evasion and Executive's Free Pass
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.
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. This self-preservation manifests as constitutional responsibility being set aside to avoid conflict.
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.
The Double Standard: This contrast—silence or delay in cases against the government, but urgency in defending it—raises serious questions about judicial impartiality and frustrates citizens.
3. Pending Cases and Docket Overload
Sheer volume: The Supreme Court is heavily burdened with thousands of pending cases, leading to a massive backlog.
Priority dilemma: While social rights and public interest issues are often prioritized due to urgency, complex political cases requiring long hearings are pushed down the list. This feeds the narrative that the backlog itself can be politically used to maintain the status quo by burying sensitive cases.
Cases Where Delay Sparked Criticism
“In India today, democracy’s loudest battles are fought in silence—inside the Supreme Court.” A handful of political cases—where government accountability is directly at stake—remain pending for years, reflecting the tension between the Court’s active role in social issues and its cautious stance on political matters.
| Case | Allegation/Political Sensitivity | Point of Criticism (Delay/Inaction) | Final Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electoral Bonds | Directly impacted ruling party funding and electoral transparency. | Petitions remained pending for years, allowing anonymous funding through major elections. | 2024: Scheme declared unconstitutional, but delay undermined transparency during elections. |
| Abrogation of Article 370 | Challenged one of the government’s biggest constitutional actions in Jammu & Kashmir. | Four years’ wait for a constitutional bench, making executive action a fait accompli. | 2023: Government’s decision upheld. |
| Misuse of Investigative Agencies (ED/CBI) | Opposition alleged systemic misuse to target political opponents. | Court granted individual bail but no systemic ruling against alleged misuse. | Ongoing. |
| Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) | Criticized as discriminatory against Muslims; challenged on constitutional grounds. | Petitions filed in 2019 still pending, leaving millions in uncertainty. | No final ruling yet. |
| Farm Laws repeal petitions | Linked to mass protests and federalism concerns. | Even after repeal, petitions questioning constitutionality lingered, raising doubts about judicial relevance. | Pending/partially infructuous. |
| Delhi Riots–UAPA Bail Cases (Free Speech) | Activists accused under anti-terror law for protest speeches. | Bail pleas delayed for years, raising concerns about free speech and judicial evasion. | Ongoing; SC yet to deliver clarity. |
Why These Cases Matter
These high-stakes cases directly involve fundamental aspects of government power—funding, constitutional changes, citizenship, federalism, and free speech. Their delays or cautious handling fuel the perception of bias toward the ruling party, showcasing the contrast: bold rulings on social issues vs. hesitation on political accountability.
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.
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 timely 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.
The lack of timely hearings or satisfactory outcomes 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) 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 major constitutional challenges.
0 Comments