Is the Indian Supreme Court Losing Public Trust and Credibility?

🔹 Introduction

The Supreme Court of India is often called the guardian of the Constitution, the watchdog of democracy, and the last hope for justice. But over the last few years, a growing section of the Indian populace has begun to question this institution's credibility, integrity, and impartiality.

What once stood tall as the beacon of justice now faces serious allegations of elitism, selective justice, judicial overreach, and even constitutional manipulation.

So the question arises:

Is the Indian Supreme Court still worthy of the people's trust? Or is it gradually losing the moral ground it once proudly occupied?

🔹 The Foundation of Trust: What Makes a Court Credible?

Public trust is paramount for any court to function effectively. Courts do not have armies or enforcement wings. Their power comes from legitimacy—the belief that their judgments are fair, unbiased, and guided by law, not influence.

A court loses its legitimacy when:

• It delivers unequal justice.

• It becomes accessible only to the rich and powerful.

• It oversteps its constitutional limits.

• It neglects the language and needs of the common man.

• It becomes shielded from accountability.

Let’s explore how each of these failures is manifesting in India’s highest court.

🔹 1. The Crisis of Delay: Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

As of now, over 5 crore cases are pending in Indian courts, out of which more than 70,000 are in the Supreme Court itself.

• Why is justice so slow?

• Why do common people wait decades for a resolution?

Meanwhile, cases involving powerful politicians or celebrities often get listed and heard within days or even within hours, sometimes at midnight. This double standard is not just a matter of perception; it reflects judicial bias or institutional elitism.

⏱️ The Statistics Tell the Story:

• A rape victim waits years for a hearing.

• A billionaire businessman gets urgent relief within 48 hours.

• An undertrial spends 10 years in jail without conviction.

The average Indian sees this and wonders:

“Is justice for sale? Or is it just not meant for people like me?”

🔹 2. Midnight Hearings for the Elite: Selective Urgency in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has opened its doors at midnight in rare cases, usually hailed as acts of judicial activism. However, in most instances, these interventions have been in politically sensitive or high-profile cases, such as:

• Stays on the death sentence of convicted terrorists.

• Petitions filed by powerful politicians under arrest.

• Controversial defamation or disqualification cases.

While these hearings are legal, the selectivity raises questions:

• Why is this urgency never seen when a poor family is evicted?

• Why does a tribal land rights case take decades?

• Why is “urgent justice” reserved for the privileged?

🔹 3. Language of the Elite: The Wall of English in Indian Courts

India is a multilingual democracy. Yet, the language of justice in the Supreme Court remains exclusively English.

More than 90% of Indians do not speak or understand English fluently. But court decisions, proceedings, and orders continue to be published in a language alien to most of the population.

This linguistic exclusion:

• Denies access to justice.

• Alienates the common man.

• Creates a perception that justice is only for the educated elite.

Despite decades of promises, the Supreme Court has failed to transition to regional languages or even provide multilingual access to its judgments.

🔹 4. Judicial Overreach: When Courts Play Legislator and Executive

The Constitution clearly defines the separation of powers:

• Legislation makes the laws.

• The executive implements them.

• The judiciary interprets them.

However, over time, the Indian Supreme Court has blurred these boundaries. It has:

• Ordered policy changes that fall within the executive's domain.

• Directed the President, even though the Constitution does not permit such orders.

• Taken suo moto cognizance of issues better addressed by Parliament.

• Created laws in the name of guidelines (e.g., Vishaka Guidelines, Environmental directives).

While judicial activism is sometimes necessary, the unchecked expansion of judicial power amounts to judicial overreach — something that undermines democracy itself.

If courts start doing everything — from governance to policy-making — then why have elections, parliaments, or executive bodies at all?

🔹 5. Who Judges the Judges? A System Without Accountability

The Supreme Court’s biggest weakness today is the lack of accountability in its own system.

• Judges are appointed by other judges.

• There is no transparent public vetting.

• Misconduct is rarely punished.

• Complaints by the public are often ignored or brushed aside.

This closed circle of power, known as the Collegium System, has been criticized by constitutional experts, legal scholars, and even former judges.

🔍 Recent Concerns:

• Judges lobbying for post-retirement positions.

• Conflict of interest in sensitive rulings.

• Suppression of corruption allegations within the judiciary.

If the judiciary is truly a public institution, why is it shielded from public scrutiny?

🔹 6. The Irony of Democratic Lectures from an Undemocratic Institution

In a democracy, all power must come from the people. Politicians, ministers, and even the Prime Minister are elected by the public. But Supreme Court judges are not elected. They are appointed without public consent or debate.

Yet today, we see judges publicly scolding elected leaders, interfering in legislative processes, and often dictating moral standards to institutions that represent over 140 crore people.

This irony is not lost on the common man. If unelected judges can override elected representatives without accountability, then what remains of the democratic spirit of the Constitution?

🔹 7. Internal Corruption and Loss of Moral Authority

Recently, there have been multiple reports and investigations revealing:

• Judges owning unexplained wealth.

• Bribery scandals within the judiciary.

• Lawyers are being raided for possessing crores of cash with links to court proceedings.

While not every judge or lawyer is corrupt, the system’s unwillingness to self-correct or even investigate such cases further erodes public trust.

People ask:

• Why are judges not subjected to the same laws they enforce?

• Why is the judiciary the only pillar of democracy without an external watchdog?

🔹 Reforms That Can Restore Trust

Restoring public trust in the Supreme Court requires bold, systemic reforms, not symbolic gestures.

Here are essential changes that must be implemented:

✅ 1. Democratize Judicial Appointments

• Judges should not appoint judges.

• A transparent, inclusive body — involving Parliament, judiciary, and civil society — should appoint judges.

✅ 2. Time-Bound Justice

• Every case should have a defined time limit.

• Failure to deliver judgment on time should lead to internal action and accountability.

✅ 3. Regional Language Accessibility

• Supreme Court proceedings and judgments must be made available in all major regional languages.

• Legal documentation should be multilingual.

✅ 4. Public Oversight of Judges

• A strong, independent body should be created to investigate complaints against judges.

• Assets of judges must be declared publicly and updated annually.

✅ 5. Limit Judicial Overreach

• The Court must respect constitutional boundaries.

• It should not interfere in military operations, presidential decisions, or legislative matters unless fundamental rights are in clear danger.

✅ 6. Transparency in Midnight Hearings

• Emergency hearings should follow transparent criteria.

• Not just for the rich or politically powerful, but for any citizen with an urgent need.

🔹 Conclusion: Justice Must Not Only Be Done — It Must Be Seen To Be Done

India’s Supreme Court is not just a building — it is a symbol. A symbol of fairness, courage, impartiality, and hope. But symbols can fade if they are not preserved.

The judiciary was created to protect democracy, not dominate it. It was empowered to deliver justice, not redefine it based on social status. It was built to be accessible, not elitist.

If India is to survive as a true democracy, then the people must trust their courts, not fear them or lose faith in them.

The time has come for honest introspection. Not from politicians or bureaucrats, but from within the judiciary itself.

We, the people of India, are not asking for favours. We are simply asking for justice — equal, transparent, timely, and in our own language.

As citizens, we respect the Supreme Court. But respect must be earned — and re-earned — through action, not legacy.

---

🖋️ Written in the voice of the people. For the people. For a just India.