Judicial Independence Under Threat: Modi’s Grip on India’s Courts
Advocate Sidra Sadozai
The judiciary is the last line of defense between the rule of law and authoritarianism in a democracy. Because of its independence, minorities are safeguarded, governments are held responsible, and constitutional principles are respected. But that bulwark seems to be weakened more and more in modern-day India. The Indian judiciary has become notably more submissive, passive, and occasionally unsettlingly silent under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership—particularly in politically delicate cases involving civil liberties, dissent, and executive overreach.
Instead of serving as a check on power, what was once a proud, assertive institution is now frequently viewed as a means of legitimizing it. India’s democracy and rule of law are seriously threatened by this increasing breakdown of judicial independence.
The Indian Judiciary’s Changing Role
India’s higher judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has long been instrumental in upholding constitutional rights. It broadened the definition of fundamental rights, overturned harsh Emergency-era laws, and established ideas like public interest litigation (PIL) that gave marginalized communities more clout.
However, the Court has become less willing to question executive authority in the past ten years, especially during the second term of the Modi administration. Critics contend that the judiciary has evolved into a rubber stamp that delays or weakens rulings that might embarrass or constrain the ruling party, rather than serving as a check on the government.
Unwillingness to Engage in Politically Charged Cases
A lengthy and alarming list of politically sensitive issues has been brought to light by the judiciary’s perceived bias or inaction:
1. The repeal of Jammu & Kashmir’s Article 370
Many people condemned the Modi government’s August 2019 revocation of Article 370 as being unconstitutional and authoritarian since it stripped Jammu & Kashmir of its special status and divided it into two union territories. Numerous habeas corpus petitions were submitted, contesting the suspension of internet services and extended detentions.
The Supreme Court postponed hearings for years rather than taking prompt action to defend fundamental rights. Consequently, without timely judicial oversight, a large number of political figures, activists, and citizens continued to be under house arrest or in preventive detention.
2. The CAA, or Citizenship Amendment Act
The 2019 CAA blatantly violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law by providing non-Muslim refugees from neighboring countries with a route to citizenship. Nationwide protests were triggered by the Act, particularly among Muslim communities.
Years later, the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the law’s constitutionality in spite of multiple legal challenges. The Court has essentially sidelined the very citizens it was intended to protect by allowing the political controversy to fester rather than protecting minorities.
3. The Electoral Bonds Program
The electoral bonds program, which permits political parties to receive anonymous donations, has come under fire for allegedly favoring the ruling BJP and compromising transparency. The Supreme Court heard the case for more than five years before rendering a decision in 2024, by which point the harm to India’s electoral integrity had already been done.
A Trend of Respect for Executive Authority
Beyond isolated incidents, a more general trend has surfaced. Particularly when it comes to matters of majoritarian policies, religious politics, or national security, the judiciary seems more hesitant to question the executive.
Journalists and activists detained under sedition or the UAPA frequently have to wait months for bail, and courts are slow to challenge the validity of their detentions.
Judicial indifference greeted the Pegasus surveillance scandal, which involved claims that the government targeted journalists and opposition leaders with spyware. No accountability was followed, and investigations were postponed.
Courts commended government efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the fact that thousands of people died from oxygen shortages and migrant workers walked hundreds of kilometers.
Legal scholars have accused the judiciary of “judicial evasion” as a result of this passivity, which is the practice of avoiding decisions that could challenge the executive by postponing hearings, avoiding important questions, or issuing ambiguous judgments.
Undermining Appointments in the Judiciary
The appointment process for judges is a critical component of judicial independence. The collegium system, which permits the judiciary to choose its own members, has been undermined by the Modi government’s repeated attempts to exert control over the procedure.
In the last few years:
Judges viewed as independent-minded or regime-critical have had their appointments postponed or blocked by the government.
The government delayed Justice K.M. Joseph’s promotion to the Supreme Court in the case where he overturned President’s Rule in Uttarakhand.
Despite the collegium’s repeated recommendations, the government declined to appoint openly gay lawyer Saurabh Kirpal in 2023, raising questions about political meddling and bias.
The government is fostering a more submissive and compliant judiciary by selectively authorizing judicial appointments and delaying the release of names for months.
The “Master of the Roster” Debate
The “master of the roster” system gives the Chief Justice of India a great deal of authority and enables them to assign cases to various benches. Concerns have increased during Modi’s administration that the impartiality principle is being undermined by assigning delicate cases to benches more likely to support the government.
During an unprecedented press conference in 2018, four senior Supreme Court judges expressed concern about the selective assignment of cases to their preferred judges and warned that “democracy is in danger.” Though mostly disregarded, the warning was historic.
The Declining Civil Liberties Space
In India, civil liberties have gradually declined as the judiciary has become more circumspect:
With journalists, writers, and comedians being harassed or imprisoned, freedom of speech is in jeopardy.
As evidenced by the arrests of anti-CAA activists under the UAPA, peaceful protest is illegal.
The rights of minorities, particularly Muslims, are being weakened more and more, and the courts are doing nothing about it.
Once bold and interventionist, the court now stays out of the spotlight, postpones justice, and supports executive authority.
In conclusion, a judicial awakening is necessary.
India’s postcolonial democratic experiment once took pride in its judiciary. When political forces attempted to weaken the Constitution, it stood up for it. However, it is now regressing into a shadow of its former self under Modi’s leadership.
Judicial independence erosion is a democratic emergency rather than merely a legal problem. Without an unbiased, unafraid judiciary, democracy devolves into majoritarian rule and the Constitution becomes a meaningless document.
The judiciary must regain its bravery, reaffirm its independence, and remind those in authority that they are also subject to the law if India is to be a true democracy. The public cannot remain silent if the courts remain silent. Who will hold those in positions of authority responsible if the judiciary is unable to serve as a check?
An independent judiciary might be the last hope in the fight for India’s democratic soul.
