By The judiciary in India is often celebrated as the guardian of the Constitution and a crucial pillar in upholding the fundamental rights enshrined within it. However, beneath this image lies a troubling reality. While the judiciary has undoubtedly delivered landmark judgments in defense of human rights, its overall performance raises serious concerns. Systemic inefficiencies, political interference, and an apparent lack of urgency in addressing critical human rights violations have tarnished its reputation. Far from being the protector of the people, the judiciary frequently falls short, betraying the lofty ideals of the Constitution it is sworn to uphold.
The Constitution of India is an exceptional text, embodying the objectives of justice, equality, and dignity for all individuals. It allocates to the judiciary the significant duty of upholding these ideals. However, in practice, the judiciary frequently falls short of this challenge. Occurrences of mass communal violence, exemplified by the Gujarat riots of 2002 and the Delhi riots of 2020, reveal the judiciary’s failure to provide prompt and effective justice. Litigations extend over decades, depriving survivors and victims’ relatives of closure. Moreover, there exists a palpable hesitance to hold influential figures accountable, despite evidence indicating their involvement in inciting violence. This failure conveys a disconcerting message: impunity prevails, and the judiciary is reluctant to challenge established power dynamics.
A critical issue undermining the judiciary’s role is the extraordinary backlog of cases. With over 40 million cases pending across courts, justice is delayed to such an extent that it often loses its meaning entirely. For victims of custodial torture, extrajudicial killings, or police excesses, years—sometimes decades—can pass before their cases are heard. The sluggish pace of judicial proceedings emboldens perpetrators, as they come to believe that the system lacks the will or capacity to hold them accountable. These delays erode public trust in the judiciary, creating a perception that it is more concerned with its procedural formalities than with delivering substantive justice.
In some instances, the judiciary has been accused of judicial overreach, encroaching on the domains of the legislature and executive. Yet, paradoxically, this hyperactivity in some areas coexists with a conspicuous apathy in others. Preventive detention laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and sedition laws have been widely criticized for being misused to stifle dissent, but the judiciary has largely refrained from curbing their abuse. Instead of acting as a check on state overreach, courts have frequently sided with the government, citing nebulous concerns of “national security.” This selective activism undermines the judiciary’s credibility. It raises uncomfortable questions about its priorities: why does the judiciary expend energy on trivial matters while remaining silent on systemic violations of fundamental rights?
The judiciary’s failure to protect freedom of expression is another glaring failure. India has seen a marked rise in the targeting of journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens who dare to challenge the government. Arrests under colonial-era sedition laws and the draconian UAPA have increased dramatically, yet courts rarely act decisively to protect free speech. While there have been occasional judgments affirming the right to dissent, these are exceptions that fail to change the broader reality. For example, activists like Sudha Bharadwaj and Umar Khalid have languished in prison for years under questionable charges. Bail hearings are delayed, trials drag on, and the judiciary’s passivity allows the state to weaponize the legal system against its critics.
There are also instances where the judiciary’s inaction borders on complicity. Consider its response to the longest-ever internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir, imposed after the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. While the Supreme Court eventually recognized the importance of internet access as a fundamental right, it failed to provide immediate relief. This tepid response effectively sanctioned the government’s draconian measures, leaving the people of Kashmir in a state of digital isolation. Similarly, the judiciary has faced criticism for its handling of the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens. These policies have raised legitimate fears of discrimination against Muslims, yet the courts have refrained from taking a firm stance, leaving vulnerable communities without recourse.
The lack of accountability within the judiciary is perhaps the most troubling aspect of its functioning. Judges wield immense power, yet there is little scrutiny of their decisions or their failures to uphold human rights. The opacity surrounding judicial appointments and the absence of a robust mechanism to address misconduct exacerbate this issue. This lack of accountability creates an environment where judicial failures go unpunished, further undermining the credibility of the institution. When judges are not held responsible for their actions—or inactions—the very foundation of justice is compromised.
Despite these criticisms, the judiciary is not beyond redemption. India’s democracy desperately needs an independent and proactive judiciary that can stand up to power and protect human rights. To achieve this, systemic reforms are imperative. The judiciary must address the backlog of cases that continues to cripple its effectiveness. Fast-track courts, greater reliance on technology, and procedural reforms can help expedite justice, particularly in cases of human rights violations. Furthermore, the judiciary must strengthen its independence by insulating itself from political interference. Transparent judicial appointments and a robust accountability framework are essential to restoring public trust in the institution.
The judiciary must also adopt a more proactive stance in defending fundamental rights. This requires timely interventions in cases of state overreach and a willingness to prioritize human rights over the convenience of procedural norms. By acting decisively, the judiciary can set a precedent that violations of human rights will not be tolerated, no matter how powerful the perpetrators. Equally important is ensuring access to justice for marginalized communities, who are often the most vulnerable to human rights abuses. The judiciary must make a concerted effort to remove the barriers that prevent these communities from seeking redress.
The judiciary in India is at a critical juncture. It can either continue down the path of inertia and selective activism, or it can rise to its constitutional mandate and reassert itself as the protector of human rights. While the challenges are immense, the stakes are even higher. India’s democratic ethos depends on a judiciary that not only upholds the letter of the law but embodies its spirit. For too long, the judiciary has allowed itself to be diminished by systemic inefficiencies and political pressures. It is time for it to reclaim its role as the ultimate defender of justice. Until it does, the judiciary will remain a shadow of what it is meant to be—a tarnished shield, symbolic of justice but incapable of delivering it.
