When politicians fail, judiciary falters, people want judges to judge themselves

By N.S. Venkataraman* 

In democratic countries across the world, a growing impression is that politicians are much the same everywhere. They are expected to frame policies in line with national, social and economic interests, yet too often these lofty objectives are intertwined with self-interest, nepotism, and corruption. The result is that even in functioning democracies with electoral systems in place, the political sphere is seen as compromised.

Observers are increasingly questioning whether democracy, hailed in theory as the superior system of governance, is delivering in practice. Many feel it suffers from severe limitations, creating conditions that are sometimes counterproductive. Against this backdrop, the judiciary is regarded as the key pillar meant to provide checks and balances, undo political wrongs, punish offenders, and uphold probity.

But here too, disillusionment has grown. The public sees a judiciary struggling with delay, inconsistency, and opacity. Judgments often appear unpredictable, sometimes even raising suspicions of bias. The pendency of cases is staggering, rising from 33 million in 2018 to around 50 million by mid-2023. Thousands of undertrials languish in prisons for years without trial, while civil and criminal cases drag on for over a decade. When higher courts routinely overturn lower-court decisions, people naturally wonder whether justice depends less on facts and law than on which bench hears the case.

A symposium in Chennai earlier this month brought these issues into sharp focus. Retired Chief Justices, senior lawyers, and academics acknowledged systemic flaws but offered limited solutions. One former Chief Justice admitted that accused persons often spend long periods in jail before acquittal, blaming procedural delays but offering no remedy. 

A senior advocate pointed to judicial vacancies as a cause for pendency but avoided addressing the prohibitive costs of litigation or the ease with which wealthy and powerful accused obtain bail. Another former Chief Justice noted India’s low conviction rate of around 20 percent in criminal cases but did not explain why major corruption trials remain undecided for years.

The Additional Solicitor General stressed that bail decisions depend on judicial discretion, but this only reinforced perceptions that such discretion is inconsistently applied. An academician at the symposium called for more honest lawyers to defend the poor, yet remained silent on the frequent adjournments granted at judges’ whims, which contribute heavily to delays.

Public distrust is not unfounded. The case of a Delhi High Court judge caught with large sums of unaccounted cash still lingers unresolved despite a Supreme Court inquiry establishing his guilt. His impeachment drags on in Parliament. More broadly, judges accepting political posts soon after retirement has led many to suspect that judicial independence is compromised, even if no direct proof exists. In earlier times, judges guarded their image with great care; today, it is not unusual to see them sharing platforms with tainted politicians or making courtesy calls on those facing judicial scrutiny.

The process of judicial appointments has also come under criticism. Resistance from judges to external oversight has raised questions about transparency and accountability. For a system that thrives on public faith, both actual integrity and the appearance of integrity are indispensable.

India’s judiciary, once widely respected, is facing a credibility crisis. If people lose trust in judges as they have in politicians, democracy itself will be endangered. For while no better system of governance has been found, democracy cannot survive without institutions worthy of public confidence.

The way forward lies within the judiciary itself. Judges must introspect, evolve self-regulatory norms, and refine their processes to restore credibility. Mahatma Gandhi once said that a man of truth must also be a man of care. If this applies to any profession more than others, it applies to judges. Only if judges judge themselves can they continue to judge others with the moral authority that democracy so desperately needs.

---

*Trustee, Nandini Voice for the Deprived, Chennai