THE LAW AND THOSE WHO UPHOLD
The utopia of good governance has its roots fixated in the utopia of unbiased legislation and judiciary. In a democracy, while we get to elect those who formulate and table laws; we have little or no say in who presides over matters of the judiciary. A stature of both longevity and exclusivity, utmost sanctity is expected to be maintained while at the helm of such indispensable motifs. Public involvement goes for a toss while the matters of adjudication are left at the behest of a few. A nation’s first and last resort is the absolute definition of a court, The perennial dispute between what went wrong and what could go wrong is struck at an exemplary balance, owing to the courts.
Hailed as the worship houses of paramount and primordial justice, the Indian legislation takes pride in terming itself the upholder of law and order in the largest democracy of the world. The four walls of the courts resonate a resounding number of verdicts and jurisdictions on a regimented and daily basis. The expedient nature of our courts is only further assisted by its approachability and the media of communication. The single-handed monopoly over the checks-and-balances system with respect to the Executive sometimes raises viable questions over the intent of those in power and their stature. At certain crossroads of public discourse and decision-making, there have been innumerable instances where the credibility of these institutions were put on a pedestal of blemishing and whataboutery.
The modus operandi of various judges and lawyers and the rationale behind holding certain positions at the helm have nevertheless grabbed headlines. The constant selection of judges as sitting members of the Rajya Sabha in the Indian context paves way for doubt and suspicion. Eyebrows are raised on whether they are actually as unbiased and blinded by their love for justice as they are expected to be on paper. Further, there have been numerous instances of faulty and untimely verdicts that have been revoked at a later stage. This undoubtedly strengthens the outreach of the courts in our country but also, throws light upon the impact of certain verdicts with overlying effects. The initial verdict given with respect to article 377 in the country, led to decades of revolts and protests untile finally, human rights were restored. On the other hand, the much-celebrated Shah Bano case was another milestone in Indian judicial history. These two and several other commemorative moments in our history establish both, the might of the system and still leave a margin for human err.
In a nutshell, the citizens have to come to terms with the idea of interrogating and revoking such decisions and as citizens, recall and validate our constitutional rights. Political biases and vendetta are humane, and more often than not any institution tries to remain wary of them. A system that hasn’t morphosed in decades, is bound to become open to public criticism and hesitancy. What critics seldom realize is, this is too vulnerable a question to convulse into a labyrinth of existentialism. Questioning the essence of the judiciary is questioning almost everything the country stands upon. Rather, we should focus upon catechizing certain judgements and their implications. The constitution provides enough mechanisms of redressal and rebuttal. Certain isolated examples of crafty involvement (if any) and speculations, tarnish a national entity altogether.
Nevertheless, there still remains an indispensable part of the population that doesn’t uphold the supposed. “hegemony” of the same. Regardless, our courts still remain the go-to flagbearers of relief and respite. Suffering from a scarcity of lawyers and judges, skewed gender representation, an overbearing schedule, they are the unsung luminaries of a country that gleams in a realm of activity and vigour.
