Is the Supreme Court of India Politically Biased?

The question of whether the Supreme Court of India has become politically biased has been a topic of much debate and scrutiny. Some argue that political influence is evident in recent rulings, while others contend that the judiciary remains a bastion of impartiality. This article seeks to explore the nuances of this debate, drawing on historical context and current judicial actions.

Historical Context and Impartiality

Historically, the Supreme Court of India has maintained a record of relative impartiality, despite the complex political landscape of the country. One example of this impartiality is the tenure of Chief Justice Hidayatullah, who served as CJI from 1976 to 1981. Despite being perceived as pro-INC (Indian National Congress), Hidayatullah demonstrated that he could be impartial by overturning the controversial Privy Purse case in 1978. This decision highlighted his commitment to legal principles over party politics.

Similarly, Justice YV Chandrachud, who served as CJI from 2013 to 2017, faced assumptions of bias due to his perceived political affiliations. However, his decision to send Sanjay Gandhi to jail in 1996 exposed the fallacy of such assumptions. Chandrachud reaffirmed the court's impartiality by focusing on the merits of the case rather than political affiliations.

Current Judicial Actions and Scrutiny

Recent years have seen a series of rulings by the Supreme Court that have sparked debates about potential political bias. The conviction of Prashant Bhushan for contempt of court and the ban on Sudarshan TV for airing an allegedly gruesome show on UPSC (Union Public Service Commission) exams have raised questions about the court's impartiality. However, it is crucial to understand that these rulings are based on specific legal principles rather than political considerations.

The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court have also made decisions that have been controversial. For example, the Bombay High Court's ruling in the Kangana Rao and Office Demolition case, as well as the Supreme Court's decision to classify the Tablighi Jamat as a threat, may reflect public sentiment but do not necessarily indicate a bias in favor of the government. These rulings could also be seen as a response to societal pressures and public demands for justice.

Impartiality and Public Emotion

The principle of judicial impartiality requires courts to make decisions based on the merits of the case, devoid of any influence from public emotion or political pressures. Yet, this principle is often tested in a country where public opinion can be swayed by media and social media platforms. The Supreme Court's response to the Babri Masjid demolition case was a landmark decision where 32 out of 58 accused were acquitted. This decision highlighted the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law, rather than succumbing to political pressure or public outrage.

Similarly, the Allahabad High Court's suo motu cognizance in the Hathras rape case was a significant step towards ensuring justice and accountability. These decisions underscore the court's dedication to impartiality and judicial independence, despite public scrutiny.

Conclusion

The question of whether the Supreme Court of India is politically biased remains a contentious one. While some cases have raised concerns, the historical and recent actions of the court demonstrate its commitment to impartiality and the rule of law. As long as the judiciary remains committed to its duty of ensuring justice based on the principles of law and not political or public pressures, it will continue to serve as a bulwark against authoritarianism and uphold the principles of democracy.