Supreme Court Crisis

Updated: Apr 4, 2020

Written by - Vedant Upadhyay

It all began with the 4-judge press conference. The judiciary was established in the year 1937 with a motive to resolve the disputes among individuals as well as different sections of society but today’s India is witnessing a tussle amongst honorable judges of the apex court of appeal. The politics in play here is the allocation of the cases to different benches. This was perhaps the only supposed valid allegation that the four-judges put on the then CJI Deepak Misra.

Presently, the appointment of the CJI has become more of a political play-off than a fair judicial election. The new CJI Ranjan Gogoi is claimed to be the supporter of the Congress (INC), courtesy his family background which is reportedly an active supporter of the party. Apparently, this was not acceptable for the present government and the aggression materialized into the SC/ST Act {Amendment} and the Attorney General case. In spite of repeated warnings given by the Supreme Court, Modi Government introduced an amendment to SC/ST Act to secure Dalit votes. The members of the Young Lawyers Association filed several PILs demanding for an unbiased hearing and fair judgement of certain renowned and important cases of the country but those PILs were rejected and the Ranjan Gogoi’s Constitutional Bench warned the Association to appoint competent lawyers rather than incompetent ones. They also used Attorney General of India as a weapon to attack the sitting CJI in the state of Rajasthan Revenue Case.

Everything had been running perfectly in the BJP’s favor until the rejection of appeal to establish fast track courts in Ram Janmbhoomi v/s Babri Masjid case changed the face of the vote bank politics. Now, the forward castes have started demanding a law akin to the SC/ST Act to build Lord Ram’s temple. The BJP had been taking the forward class vote bank for granted, and the present turn of events has left the party in a state of unexpected dilemma.

A total of 3.3 crore cases are pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which 42% are cases of rape and murder. The current strength of the Supreme Court judges is 25, which means a burden of 13,20,000 cases lies on every judge. The notable irony, here, is that director Sanjay Leela Bansali’s Padmavat was a burning case early this year alongside 1,38,60,000 cases of rape and murder.

It is upsetting to witness that the apex institution of the country is undergoing a crisis which demands arduous and continuous efforts to resolve. The bureaucrats and the judges have turned the system so rigid that it has become seemingly impenetrable.

If this political contract continues then sooner or later the judiciary will be in the hands of legislature and the condition of Supreme Court will resemble that of the CBI and RBI.

Go to our new site