The Erosion Of Judicial Independence: Is India’s Judiciary An Extension Of Hindutva? – OpEd
Once the last bastion against executive overreach, India’s judiciary today stands accused of capitulating to the ideological project of Hindutva—an ethno-nationalist vision that seeks to establish India as a Hindu-first nation.
The creeping erosion of judicial independence is not merely a matter of conjecture; it is evident in the actions, statements, and post-retirement sinecures of those who once wielded the gavel. With an increasing number of verdicts and judicial appointments aligning seamlessly with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) ideological imperatives, one must ask: Has the judiciary become an extension of Hindutva?
Judicial Praise as Political Currency
The subservience of sections of the Indian judiciary to the executive has been exposed in recent years through a series of statements and verdicts that show an unmistakable pattern. Justice M.R. Shah, then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a “model and a hero” in 2018, only to be elevated to the Supreme Court months later. In 2021, during the Gujarat High Court’s Golden Jubilee celebrations, Justice Shah doubled down, effusively praising Modi as “our most popular, loved, vibrant and visionary leader.” The pattern of judicial adulation extends beyond Shah. Former Supreme Court Justice Arun Kumar Mishra went as far as to call Modi a “versatile genius who thinks globally and acts locally.” This thinly veiled obsequiousness raises a fundamental question: When judges turn into cheerleaders for the executive, how can they be trusted as impartial arbiters of the law?
Post-retirement rewards have only deepened suspicions of judicial compromise. Justice Arun Mishra was appointed Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) soon after retirement, despite protests from rights groups who cited his questionable judicial record. His tenure at the NHRC has been marked by a reluctance to hold the government accountable for human rights violations, reinforcing fears that his appointment was not a coincidence but a reward for loyalty.
The Judiciary’s Complicity in Institutionalizing Hindutva
It is not just statements but legal rulings that reveal a judiciary bending to Hindutva’s ideological demands. Consider the controversial appointment of former Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam as the Governor of Kerala—an appointment widely perceived as political compensation for quashing an FIR against BJP leader Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh murder case. Sathasivam had also commuted the death sentence of Dara Singh, a Bajrang Dal militant who burned Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons alive, to life imprisonment, citing that his intent was merely to “teach a lesson.” Such judicial decisions are not mere anomalies; they fit into a broader pattern of rulings that have helped sanitize the violent pasts of Hindutva foot soldiers while reinforcing the BJP’s narrative of victimhood.
The judiciary’s handling of Modi’s alleged complicity in the 2002 Gujarat pogrom is another case in point. In 2012, the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) granted Modi a clean chit, ignoring the fact that amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran had found sufficient grounds to prosecute him under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code. This judicial absolution proved crucial in Modi’s reinvention from a Hindutva hardliner to a globally palatable leader, smoothing his path to the Prime Minister’s office.
Exonerations, Delays, and Double Standards
Judicial double standards have become glaringly obvious in politically charged cases. When BJP leaders or their affiliates are accused of wrongdoing, verdicts miraculously swing in their favor. Consider the case of Maya Kodnani, a former Gujarat minister convicted of orchestrating the murder of 97 Muslims during the 2002 riots. Her conviction was overturned in 2018, while fellow accused Babu Bajrangi also saw a reduction in sentence. When it comes to crimes against Muslims, the judiciary’s sluggishness in delivering justice is telling. The 1987 Hashimpura massacre, where police murdered 42 Muslims, took 31 years for convictions to be handed down. The 1987 Maliyana massacre, where 72 Muslims were killed, remains unresolved, with over 900 adjournments spanning three decades.
In stark contrast, cases that threaten the BJP’s interests are dismissed with alarming speed. In 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the Modi government’s controversial Rafale fighter jet deal, despite glaring irregularities and evidence of kickbacks uncovered in France. In 2022, the Pegasus spyware case, which implicated the Indian government in snooping on journalists and opposition leaders, was buried under the pretext of “national security.” The judiciary’s reluctance to scrutinize the executive’s overreach raises a disturbing possibility: has it willingly surrendered its independence?
The Ayodhya Verdict: A Watershed Moment
Perhaps the most consequential instance of the judiciary aligning with Hindutva was the Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. While acknowledging that the mosque’s demolition by Hindutva mobs in 1992 was illegal, the court nonetheless awarded the disputed land to Hindu petitioners, effectively legitimizing the destruction. This decision sent an unmistakable message: majoritarian impulses could dictate judicial outcomes. It was a resounding victory for the BJP, which had built its political career on the promise of constructing a temple on the disputed site.
Manufacturing Legitimacy for Authoritarianism
A judiciary that should act as the final check against authoritarian overreach now appears to be manufacturing legitimacy for it. The Supreme Court’s validation of Modi’s 2016 demonetization, despite its catastrophic economic consequences, is a prime example. Rather than questioning the legality of an executive order that wiped out 87% of India’s currency overnight, the court waited six years to deliver a verdict that essentially rubber-stamped the move. The judiciary’s deference to the government has reached a point where even blatant policy failures are shielded from legal scrutiny.
Judicial Bias and the Persecution of Dissenters
While BJP-affiliated individuals find themselves exonerated, critics of the regime face relentless judicial harassment. Activists, journalists, and intellectuals have been imprisoned under draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sedition charges, with little to no judicial relief. The arrests of intellectuals like Anand Teltumbde, Sudha Bharadwaj, and Umar Khalid reflect how the judiciary has become a willing accomplice in the state’s crackdown on dissent.
The recent move by 55 Rajya Sabha MPs, led by senior advocate and politician Kapil Sibal, to impeach Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav for his inflammatory anti-Muslim remarks exemplifies the growing discontent with judicial bias. But such initiatives remain largely symbolic in a system where judicial accountability has become an afterthought.
Can the Judiciary Redeem Itself?
For a democracy to function, an independent judiciary is non-negotiable. However, India’s judiciary is increasingly being viewed as a mere appendage of the Hindutva state—an institution that serves not as a check on executive excesses but as an enabler of them. The rot runs deep, but reform is not impossible. Ensuring judicial independence requires structural overhauls, starting with a transparent appointment process insulated from executive influence. Stronger post-retirement restrictions must also be put in place to curb the quid pro quo culture that incentivizes judicial sycophancy.
India’s judiciary today stands at a crossroads. It can either reclaim its role as the guardian of constitutional democracy or continue its descent into ideological subservience. If the latter path is chosen, history will not judge it kindly.
Debashis Chakrabarti
Debashis Chakrabarti is an international media scholar and social scientist, currently serving as the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Politics and Media. With extensive experience spanning 35 years, he has held key academic positions, including Professor and Dean at Assam University, Silchar. Prior to academia, Chakrabarti excelled as a journalist with The Indian Express. He has conducted impactful research and teaching in renowned universities across the UK, Middle East, and Africa, demonstrating a commitment to advancing media scholarship and fostering global dialogue.
No comments:
Post a Comment