Death Knell Of Democracy: The Dangers Of Politicising The Judiciary
The standoff between political mobilisation and judicial independence came to the fore after the principal opposition party (Congress) marched toward the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
A critical juncture was reached when Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi and Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge formally asked to meet with the Chief Justice of India. They wanted to submit a memorandum raising concerns about alleged electoral discrepancies, calling for the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner, a halt to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a return to postal ballots. The Hon’ble Chief Justice declined their request, reasoning that these issues were already before the Supreme Court and that holding an administrative meeting could breach the principles of separation of powers and judicial propriety. He emphasized that while the Supreme Court is open to all citizens, complaints should be made through formal petitions not administrative or political memoranda. The Honourable Chief Justice re-stated the inter se institutional distance which ought to be maintained between the political class and the judiciary, especially when the matters are sub judice. However, what happened thereafter is the most alarming scenario.
The leaders who addressed such a letter to the Honourable Chief Justice joined a rally of party activists accompanied by leaders of all political parties, in an unruly march to the Supreme Court. The media described the said united march to the Supreme Court as a coming together of political parties on an important issue. The numbers and the jingoism accompanying the mobilised crowd, joined by Advocates, was not clearly an attempt to file an application to the Court seeking judicial review. In a clear betrayal of intentions and the underlying intent, the Kerala Congress Party addressed the Chief Justice by his first name and tweeted on X as under
“Dear Surya Kant,
If law and order is not your domain, resign now. We will find your replacement who can handle it.”
This was found to have been deleted.
The messaging was clear that the opposition political parties are putting the Supreme Court on notice. The method and manner of approaching the Supreme Court with a crowd, in a dangerously aggressive posturing, entering the Registry of Supreme Court in numbers and overawing the surroundings, was a clear statement reminiscent of a marauding crowd with an intent to conquer - hostility towards the institution not even sought to be disguised, reminiscent of Mahmud of Ghazni’s assault on Somnath.
An outcry against the Supreme Court and repeated attempts to diminish its stature, as a tool of persuading the said institution to see its world view is a perfect recipe for invading the independence of the Supreme Court. The political rally and calls for a march to the Supreme Court were widely condemned by legal experts and political opponents. Gathering crowds outside the judiciary amounts to an attempt to directly pressure the court something that could threaten its independence. Courts in India have long been regarded as bastions of justice, their independence central to the country’s democratic framework. Moves to bring political protests directly to the doors of the judiciary are clearly an attempt to undermine the independence. I believe that any attempts to subjugate the independent judicial structure of the Indian State, to political theatrics the nation, causes a dangerous slide into mobocracy, a concern famously raised by Justice Krishna Iyer. When the uproar of the streets overwhelm the calm and reasoned voice of constitutional law it does more than erode judicial authority; it rings the death knell of democracy itself.
To safeguard our democracy, it is imperative that all stakeholders viz., political leaders, legal professionals and citizens alike respect the separation of powers and uphold the sanctity of judicial institutions and its process. Political actors must refrain from using the courts as arenas for spectacle or pressure. At the same time, investing in civic education and building a culture that honours judicial independence are vital to maintaining the checks and balances that keep our democracy strong. After all, a litigant, whether a political party or otherwise, who refuses to abide by a court verdict and mounts collateral challenges to its stature, ought to be dealt with, sternly, so as to not erode the authority of the constitutional institutions.
We must remember that democracy’s endurance depends on the strength and integrity of its institutions. If we let the noise and pressure of the streets silence the steady, principle voice of justice; we risk sounding the death knell of democracy itself. This is not just a duty for judges or lawmakers but for every one of us who values freedom and fairness. Standing by in silence while the courts are pressurised or politicised is not neutrality it is complicity. True democracy requires courage, vigilance and a willingness to defend the rule of law even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. Each time we choose to uphold justice over expedience, to respect process over passion, we breathe new life into our democracy. The wellbeing of our Republic depends on the choices we make both in moments of crisis and in our everyday actions. We must unequivocally condemn the practice of marching towards the courts, pressuring them and undermining constitutional institutions. Taking our institutions for granted and attempting to subvert due process is not just irresponsible, it is a direct threat to the nation’s democratic fabric and cannot be tolerated.
Author is an Advocate practicing in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
[The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.]