Is the Judiciary in India really Independent in Today’s time?

Spine, Spine, Spine!It was the emphatic reply of Prof. Upendra Baxi when asked, “What are the three things you would say, every citizen wants, from a judge in the Indian judiciary at any level?” by Justice Gautam Shirish Patel. This response encapsulates the essence of judicial independence, integrity, and accountability—principles that are foundational to democracy. Yet, recent events and controversies have tested these principles, raising critical questions about the judiciary's impartiality and its role in maintaining the separation of powers.

Judicial Courage: A Pillar of Democracy

The judiciary, as the sentinel of constitutional rights, often finds itself in the crosshairs of powerful interests—be it political, corporate, or societal. In such moments, the "spine" symbolizes the courage to stand firm against these pressures. Judges are expected to act as impartial arbiters, not swayed by the might of the executive or the hysteria of public opinion. Their courage lies in upholding the Constitution, even if it means delivering unpopular verdicts or confronting institutional inertia.

However, there have been instances that raise questions about the judiciary’s resilience and independence. Justice Rohinton Nariman’s pointed observation that “The judge who acquitted Babri demolition accused was made Deputy Lok Ayukta; that is the state of affairs in the country,” underscores the challenges faced by the judiciary in maintaining its integrity and autonomy. Such statements serve as stark reminders of how judicial independence can be undermined when political or extraneous factors influence appointments or decisions.

Controversies Surrounding Justice DY Chandrachud

Justice DY Chandrachud’s tenure as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was marked by significant judicial contributions. However, it also became a focal point for controversies that sparked debates about judicial propriety and impartiality.

1. Participation in Ganesh Chaturthi Aarti with Prime Minister Modi

In the lead-up to the Maharashtra state elections, Justice Chandrachud was seen performing Ganesh Chaturthi aarti along side Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This public display, involving a constitutional authority and the head of the executive, raised eyebrows and led to criticisms of perceived impropriety. The judiciary, as a guardian of the Constitution, is expected to maintain a clear distance from political or religious activities to preserve its impartiality.

Given the proximity of the incident to the elections, critics argued that such actions might erode public perception of the judiciary’s neutrality, especially when the political stakes were high. While participation in cultural or religious events is not inherently problematic, the context and timing of the aarti highlighted the delicate balance judges must maintain between personal beliefs and their constitutional responsibilities.

2. Comment About Praying for a Solution to the Ayodhya Dispute

In another instance, Justice Chandrachud, while delivering a speech in his native place, mentioned that he had prayed to God for a resolution to the Ayodhya dispute. This statement, though seemingly personal, attracted significant attention because it touched upon a highly sensitive and landmark case that had far-reaching socio-political implications.

The remark sparked concerns over whether personal religious sentiments could influence judicial decision-making, especially in cases with profound religious and political dimensions. Critics highlighted that such statements could potentially compromise the judiciary’s image as an impartial institution and cast doubts on its independence from religious or ideological leanings.

Judicial Independence Under Scrutiny

These controversies bring to the forefront a broader debate about the boundaries of judicial conduct. While judges are also citizens with personal beliefs and cultural identities, their public actions and statements carry symbolic weight. Any perception of alignment with political figures or religious sentiments risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary's impartiality.

Justice Chandrachud’s tenure also coincided with growing criticism of the collegium system for judicial appointments. The system, criticized as opaque and prone to favoritism, has been described by Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju as fostering a "quid pro quo" culture in an interview of Dil se with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. Allegations of mutual favors within the judiciary, coupled with perceived executive influence, have amplified concerns about judicial independence.

Vacancies in the Judiciary: A Systemic Crisis

Adding to the challenges of maintaining public trust is the judiciary's capacity crisis. Despite the Supreme Court functioning at full strength, as of April 1, 2024, there were 324 judicial vacancies in High Courts and over 5,000 vacant positions in subordinate courts. This shortfall exacerbates delays in justice delivery, with pendency of cases reaching alarming levels.

The controversies surrounding the judiciary’s leadership, combined with systemic inefficiencies, underscore the urgent need for reform. Judicial independence is not just about resisting external interference but also about addressing internal weaknesses that undermine the institution’s effectiveness and credibility.

The Call for Reform and Introspection

The judiciary’s role as the protector of constitutional values demands unwavering neutrality and integrity. Justice Chandrachud’s controversies, whether perceived or real, highlight the delicate tightrope judges must walk. They are a reminder of the judiciary's responsibility to remain above reproach in both action and perception.

At the same time, systemic reforms—such as enhancing transparency in judicial appointments, filling vacancies, and reinforcing mechanisms for judicial accountability—are essential. Public trust in the judiciary is not just built on landmark judgments but also on the consistent demonstration of impartiality, courage, and commitment to the rule of law.

Citizens’ Role in Strengthening the Judicial Spine

While much is expected of judges, citizens also play a crucial role in upholding the judiciary's independence. There is a new trend among the netizens of trolling the sitting judges, even of the Supreme Court, to incline the outcome of a Judicial proceeding to a larger public view. Public discourse on judicial matters should be informed and respectful, avoiding unwarranted attacks or media trials that undermine judicial dignity. 

Conclusion

Prof. Upendra Baxi’s invocation of the “spine” serves as a powerful reminder of the foundational qualities citizens expect from their judges: courage, integrity, and resilience. Justice Nariman’s critical observation about judicial appointments only reaffirms the need for a judiciary that is untainted by external pressures.

In these challenging times, as the judiciary navigates an increasingly complex socio-political landscape, the call for a robust spine is more relevant than ever. It is a call not just for the judiciary but for every stakeholder in democracy, urging them to uphold the principles of justice with unflinching resolve. Only then can the judiciary truly fulfill its role as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of the people's rights.