The Supreme Court is a key player in the political history of India, braided with the threads of Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian era. Being a pivotal player in both legal and political issues, the Supreme Court of India has garnered attention lately. It has aggressively contested the choices made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, with the Indian Constitution designating it as a strong judicial body. But even with its constitutional authority, there are hints that the court faces challenges that prevent it from developing into a strong check on the authoritarian inclinations of the current government. This continuous conflict is reminiscent of the historical narrative that the court’s authority was tarnished during an earlier period of authoritarian control, raising doubts about the court’s capacity to remain a steadfast bulwark of justice.
The 21-month Emergency that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi proclaimed in 1975, a time of intense authoritarianism, put the court’s power to the test. Following that, the court set out to restore many of the roles and reputation it had lost. Its purview extended beyond the traditional confines of judicial review to include duties typically performed by the legislative and executive branches. A legal researcher at the University of Leipzig named Anuj Bhuwania notes that the court has sometimes used these expanded powers to push an agenda that is at odds with what Modi’s administration wants to achieve. The court has established itself as a powerful force for progressive change thanks to landmark decisions like the decriminalisation of the defence of people’ right to privacy. But there are good reasons to be skeptical of its effectiveness as a stand-alone check on executive authority given its reluctance to take on the administration on divisive matters.
The court’s support of the government’s 2019 decision to deprive [Occupied] Jammu and Kashmir of its statehood—a move that was greeted with strong protest and concerns—is a noteworthy example illuminating this reluctance. Moreover, in 2022, the court exonerated Prime Minister Modi of involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots. This ruling sparked controversy, especially when the court proposed that the petitioners be prosecuted for misusing the legal system. The court’s distribution of land at Ayodhya, the location of an old mosque destroyed by Hindu zealots in 1992, was another controversial ruling. Hindus were given the site, and as a result, the magnificent Ram temple was built and opened by Modi. Such rulings raise questions about the court’s objectivity as a constitutional check and hint at a clear convergence of its goals with those of the ruling party.
Citizenship Amendment Act
When the court is unwilling to side with the government, it sometimes engages in “judicial avoidance,” delaying making decisions in matters that are extremely sensitive. This strategy has been used most prominently in legal challenges to the Citizenship Amendment Act, a measure that has come under fire for allegedly discriminating against Muslims. Such cases have seen prolonged postponements of their hearings, which has contributed to the impression of a reluctant and slow-moving judiciary. The court’s rulings are shown to be significantly influenced by political pressure. There have been allegations that the government tries to sway judges’ decisions in delicate cases and meddles in the nomination process. A lawyer went to the extreme length of drafting an open letter to the chief justice, protesting about judges assigned to cases involving human rights and freedom of expression being changed at the last minute.
India has not seen the overt court-stacking seen in some other democracies under strongman administrations, despite these difficulties. Essentially blocking the only known attempt at court-stacking in recent memory, the court itself disregarded a bill in 2015 that would have given the president more control over judge selections. Bhuwania contends that the court has chosen to align its agenda with the administration in order to protect its autonomy, jeopardising its ability to serve as a trustworthy constitutional check on executive authority.
The court’s and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) shared objectives raises concerns about the judiciary’s capacity to function independently as a strong check on the activities of the government. The court’s more expansive approach raises questions about its ability to act as a steadfast check on the possible abuses of the ruling party by highlighting the complex interaction between institutional weaknesses and political pressures. Even if the court has shown to be a strong force in certain situations, doubts remain regarding its independence, especially when it comes to issues concerning the treatment of Muslims. The international community is urged to take notice and voice its concerns on how political influences may be impacting the Indian courts, especially in issues concerning the rights and fair treatment of minority communities.
The author frequently contributes on issues concerning national and regional security, focusing on matters having critical impact in these milieus. She can be reached [email protected]
