Why Recent Attacks on India's Supreme Court Raise Concerns About Democracy

Emerging Criticism of the Supreme Court

A pattern of criticism directed at the Supreme Court of India has surfaced recently, originating from two distinct sources: a constitutional authority and several members of the ruling party. The Vice President, Jagdeep Dhankhar, was the first to voice his discontent, targeting the Supreme Court for its ruling that set a timeline for the President to sign bills passed by state legislatures. This ruling, stemming from the significant April 8 decision in the Tamil Nadu vs. Governor case, was seen as a triumph for state rights across India. Dhankhar emphasized the need for judicial accountability, labeling Article 142 of the Constitution as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces” that the judiciary can wield at will. This article empowers the Supreme Court to issue any decree necessary for achieving complete justice in ongoing cases.

Following Dhankhar's remarks, BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dinesh Sharma also criticized the Supreme Court. Sharma, a former deputy chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, asserted that neither Parliament nor the President should be directed by external forces. Meanwhile, Dubey, a prominent BJP figure in the Lok Sabha, argued that if the Supreme Court is responsible for law-making, then legislative bodies should be dissolved. He even accused Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna of inciting “civil wars” within the nation.

In an attempt to mitigate the backlash, the BJP has distanced itself from the statements made by its MPs, yet it has remained silent on the equally troubling comments from Vice President Dhankhar, a notable figure in the party who previously served as the Governor of West Bengal. During his governorship, he frequently obstructed the operations of the state government led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Critics of the Supreme Court's alleged “overreach” seem to overlook the essential role that all three branches of government—the legislature, executive, and judiciary—must play in a functioning democracy. While Parliament creates laws and the government implements them, the judiciary serves as a crucial check on power. Without this balance, elected officials can easily drift towards autocracy, a trend observed in many successful democracies worldwide. For instance, just a day prior, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened to halt the Trump administration's attempt to deport Venezuelans under an outdated wartime law, illustrating that even the most powerful leaders are subject to judicial oversight.

History provides stark reminders of the dangers posed by unchecked power among elected officials. The election of Adolf Hitler in Germany and the subsequent devastation, along with Vladimir Putin's rise in Russia, which has led to war and constitutional changes for lifetime presidency, serve as cautionary tales. In contemporary politics, leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orban and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu have faced judicial pushback for their actions.

In India, the government has often overstepped its boundaries, as seen in the controversial demonetization of ₹1,000 and ₹500 notes in November 2016, executed without parliamentary consent, which adversely impacted the economy.

The recent critical remarks aimed at the Supreme Court suggest an effort to reprimand the judiciary for its timely interventions. However, it is crucial to recognize that when Parliament is sidelined and the executive is ineffective, it falls upon the judiciary to uphold justice. The independence of the judiciary and other institutions is vital for a thriving democracy. Yet, the true strength of the judiciary in this context remains to be seen, as past instances have shown judges appearing resolute only to later yield to political pressure. Time will reveal the judiciary's steadfastness.