NEW DELHI: Control anti-India activism to protect the faith of millions of people in judiciaryand democracy.
Government of India has implemented a new “Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita” from July, bringing revolutionary changes to the entire democratic and judicial system. It will benefit millions of people with better rules and laws. However, leaders of the opposition are opposing this justice code. At the same time, there is a growing concern on various platforms in the country that the systems responsible for guiding and shaping the nation’s future are exhibiting a kind of unruliness.
In Parliament, members are disregarding all rules, not following the orders and instructions of the Speaker/ Chairperson, and creating disgraceful scenes. Congress leaders are advocating for the release of a serious terrorism accused from jail and accepting him as an honourable member of the House. Similarly, in the name of freedom of expression, a section of the media and social media are not adhering to any rules or discipline, spreading highly objectionable, provocative, and insulting content.
Likewise, in the name of religious faith, many new people are issuing decrees, increasing superstition, and endangering people’s lives. The judiciary remains the only hope for protection from all these issues. In recent years, several historic decisions have come from the Supreme Court, raising expectations. However, concerns have also arisen due to the activism of lawyers and judges.
Moreover, there is sometimes a conflict between the top court and the Government of India, and differences between the High Court and the Supreme Court over the appointment of judges have left hundreds of positions vacant, with millions of cases pending in courts. Therefore, the question arises as to when and who will formulate a code of ethics for these systems? Recently, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud reprimanded a lawyer for trying to disrupt a Supreme Court hearing in a case related to alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).
There was a verbal altercation between the two. But then the country’s highest court is often accused of prioritizing highprofile political cases. However, CJI Chandrachud does not agree with this. Justice Chandrachud has said that “It is a misconception that the court is continuously deciding high-profile political cases. Most of the work done by the courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, pertains to legal disputes of individual citizens and has nothing to do with politics. These are related to land disputes, pension claims, or criminal cases. Cases involving political figures receive significantly more media coverage compared to those involving citizens, creating the perception that the court is heavily involved in the political arena. Courts have always played a role in ensuring that politics operates within the rule of law and the boundaries of the Constitution.
I believe that if courts are hearing many cases that also impact politics, it is a natural result of a vibrant democracy where ideas and issues are continuously being contested on multiple platforms, including the courts.’ In recent years, the workload on the courts has increased. On one hand, the number of pending cases is rising. The government has admitted in Parliament that out of the sanctioned 1,114 positions in the country’s high courts, 357 positions are vacant. In the Allahabad High Court, 76 positions are vacant. This means that somewhere, the chief justices of the Supreme Court and high courts are unable to agree on names, and as a result, millions of people hoping for timely justice are left wandering.
Yes, with the use of technology and live broadcasting of Supreme Court proceedings, transparency and credibility may increase, along with expectations. The purpose of using technology is to reach people easily. According to Justice Chandrachud, “We are conducting hearings through video conferencing. Under video conferencing, the Supreme Court of the country is not just limited to Tilak Marg in Delhi. The Supreme Court truly represents the country. From all over the country, even from remote areas, a lawyer can connect with us through a simple cell phone using the link for video conferencing hearings.
Similarly, those whose cases are in the Supreme Court or not can also observe the work being done by the Supreme Court.” Credibility is very important in a democracy. According to a recent report by an international law institute, trust in the American Supreme Court among Americans has reached a new low in the past two years, with only about 40% expressing confidence in their courts. On the other hand, some time ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused the Congress party of not wanting to be committed to the country in any way. Reposting a letter from well-known lawyers on the social media platform X, the Prime Minister wrote, “Five decades ago, the Congress party called for a ‘committed judiciary.’ They shamelessly want others to be committed to their selfish interests, but the Congress party avoids any commitment to the nation. No wonder 140 crore Indians are rejecting them.”
In a letter to the Chief Justice, more than 600 lawyers said that the work of a particular group is to exert pressure to influence court decisions, especially in cases involving leaders or those accused of corruption. The letter stated that their activities are a threat to the democratic fabric of the country and faith in the judicial process. There is certainly substance to these allegations, as some anti-government lawyer leaders continuously file petitions and accuse the judiciary of a lack of credibility in the media.
Their past record is also proof that they try to become MPs by contesting elections from regions influenced by the party whose leaders’ corruption or other crimes they defend, and then attempt to become law ministers. From this perspective, it is necessary to strictly control anti-India activism or other activities to protect the faith of millions of people in the strong roots of the Indian judiciary and democracy