By Dipak Kurmi
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru once aptly remarked, “Events crowd in upon us in such quick succession that we are apt to miss their true significance.” This sentiment holds striking relevance today in the context of the Supreme Court of India, where the tide of systematic attacks on judicial independence has reached an alarming level. The judiciary, once revered as the final bastion of democracy and the rule of law, is being subjected to an unprecedented wave of unwarranted criticism, particularly from political factions, media outlets, and even members of the legal fraternity.
The most disturbing instance of this trend is the vicious vilification of the former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, a Harvard-educated jurist of unimpeachable integrity. Following his retirement on November 10, 2024, he has been the subject of relentless attacks, orchestrated with political motivations rather than legitimate concerns about jurisprudence. The barrage of baseless accusations, propagated by certain political entities and amplified by sections of the media, is a glaring attempt to undermine the fundamental independence of the judiciary. The targeting of judicial figures with no tangible evidence or legal reasoning constitutes an ignoble degradation of democratic values and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
These insidious attacks are not mere expressions of dissent; they serve a more sinister purpose. They are calculated attempts to intimidate judges, influence judicial verdicts, and erode the public’s faith in the judiciary. The dangerous precedent being set not only compromises the judiciary’s ability to function independently but also emboldens political actors who seek to wield undue influence over the courts. There is an unmistakable pattern wherein political parties, sometimes bolstered by foreign elements inimical to India’s interests, attempt to destabilize the Supreme Court through extrajudicial means, rather than engaging in lawful discourse and reasoned legal argument.
In any democracy, judicial decisions are bound to invite criticism, particularly when they touch upon contentious socio-political issues. However, there is a marked difference between informed critique and malicious defamation. Judicial verdicts are by their very nature subject to scrutiny, just as legislative and executive actions are. Yet, what we witness today is a blatant departure from constructive discourse; instead, personal attacks, character assassinations, and unfounded allegations have become tools of coercion against members of the bench.
One of the most alarming aspects of this phenomenon is the gendered nature of certain attacks. The vitriol directed at the first female judge to be elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court in April 2018 is a glaring example of how bias operates within even the highest echelons of legal discourse. Similarly, the orchestrated attempt to impeach a former Chief Justice of India in 2018, backed by seven opposition parties, signaled a dangerous willingness to use parliamentary tools to subvert judicial autonomy. Such actions serve as a stark reminder of the lengths to which political actors are willing to go in their pursuit of dominance over the judiciary.
At the heart of this issue lies the evolving role of the media, particularly digital and social platforms. In an age where information is disseminated at unprecedented speed, the judiciary has increasingly found itself at the mercy of sensationalist narratives. As Justice Jamshed Burjor Pardiwala aptly pointed out at the Second Justice HR Khanna Memorial Symposium in 2022, “Personal attacks on judges for their judgments lead to a dangerous scenario where judges have to think about what the media thinks, rather than what the law says.” This observation underscores a grave reality: when judicial decisions are dissected through the prism of political and media biases rather than legal reasoning, the very foundations of democracy stand threatened.
The consequences of this trend are dire. If left unchecked, these attacks will not only corrode judicial independence but also diminish public confidence in the judiciary, leading to an erosion of the rule of law. India prides itself on being the world’s largest working democracy, and at its core lies an impartial and fearless judiciary. However, if judges are forced to weigh the political repercussions of their verdicts rather than applying the Constitution and the law, we risk slipping into an era where the judiciary becomes subservient to the whims of political power.
To counteract this rising menace, it is imperative that the legal fraternity, civil society, and responsible media entities stand resolutely in defense of judicial independence. Lawyers, irrespective of their political affiliations, must uphold their duty to protect the sanctity of the courts rather than using them as battlegrounds for political gains. The onus also lies on the legislature and executive to respect the autonomy of the judiciary and refrain from engaging in acts that undermine its integrity.
As history has shown, nations that fail to uphold judicial independence inevitably slide into authoritarianism. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, India’s first President and an eminent legal scholar, aptly referred to the Supreme Court as the “Temple of Justice” during its inauguration in 1958. It is a noble edifice built on the principles of fairness, impartiality, and constitutional supremacy. To desecrate it with politically motivated assaults is to strike at the very heart of India’s democratic fabric.
The urgency of the moment demands unwavering vigilance. If democracy is to thrive, the judiciary must remain impervious to political machinations. The sanctity of judicial independence must not be a matter of convenience but a non-negotiable principle enshrined in the collective conscience of the nation. The time to act is now, before the erosion of judicial integrity reaches a point of no return.
(the writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
