Recent judicial decisions by the Supreme Court have sparked controversy and raised concerns about the legitimacy of the judiciary. These decisions, based on legal merit, challenged state excesses and also harmed the ruling party’s interests. However, they have been perceived by many as breaking a pattern of judicial abdication and acquiescence.
In the digital media ecology, each hearing on subjects of public importance receives immediate online commentary. This has facilitated live tweeting and streaming of proceedings, bringing the court into social media streams. However, a disturbing trend has surfaced: abuse of the judiciary. Many believe that institutions are colonial impositions or are rooted in western liberalism and are therefore in conflict with the social norms of “new India”. When this authoritarian world view is challenged, its proponents seek to subvert the legitimacy of the court.
Digital campaigns against the court exploit public frustration over the decades it takes for citizens to obtain justice, anger regarding judicial nepotism, and the lack of diversity in the higher judiciary. They conjure up fantasies of a secret society of senior lawyers influencing the court. Such attacks masquerade as suggestions for reform, but the masked objective seems to be to achieve absolute executive control.
A study by Joyojeet Pal and Sheyril Agarwal gathered data over four months and highlighted spikes in comments on five days when the Chief Justice of India took positions antithetical to the BJP-led government or its supporters. They concluded that the “Chief Justice’s liberal leanings in several judgments rankle many who lean right. But the more significant issue is that purging the Supreme Court of similarly liberal-leaning justices represents an existential thorn in institutional capture by the political establishment.”
Critics may dismiss this study as biased, but the study notes distinctions in how the Opposition and wider civil society organize and conduct campaigns online — by appealing to the Court to follow its constitutional role. Each judgment and slip-up is put up, ridiculed, and delegitimized through coordinated campaigns. This ignores the role of the police and politicians in the initial procedure.
The way forward is to publicly acknowledge the threats facing the independence of the judiciary, carefully scrutinize proposals disguised as judicial reforms, and take urgent but careful remedial action on issues such as the collegium system. Public trust is the judiciary’s greatest ally, and it must be restored by improving service delivery, increasing diversity in appointments, and improving the Court’s counter-majoritarian spine.
The judiciary and the wider legal fraternity must counter online threats by dispelling misinformation and exposing bad faith propaganda. This requires reasoned, consistent, and honest public communication about the judicial process. Finally, we the people must recognize the Court as an imperfect ally, sometimes even a negligent guardian, but nonetheless a protector of our constitutional rights. Our civic vision has to be broader than the narrow framing of a powerful Prime Minister or a dominant political party, regardless of the election results.
