BY KULDEEP SINGH YADAV
Democratic institutions are the backbone of any nation committed to justice, equality, and peace. However, when such institutions, especially the judiciary, are influenced by fanatic or radical mindsets, the repercussions can be severe. The judiciary, which serves as the guardian of the constitution and a pillar of democracy, is particularly critical in ensuring the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens. Yet, recent trends suggest that some judicial decisions have opened a “Pandora’s box” of controversies, threatening the nation’s harmony.
The judiciary plays a decisive role in upholding the principles of democracy. Its primary responsibility is to interpret and apply the law impartially, safeguarding the rights of individuals and ensuring justice. A key function of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is to evaluate petitions and cases brought before it. It holds the power to reject frivolous or dangerous petitions that could incite communal tensions or disrupt the societal fabric.
However, when decisions or actions of the judiciary align with radicalized ideologies, they risk compromising their impartiality. Instead of fostering unity and peace, such actions can exacerbate existing divides, leading to unrest and distrust in the system. Since India’s independence in 1947, the delicate balance of secularism has often been tested. Religious places, their history, and their use have remained sensitive issues. Unfortunately, recent judicial actions have reignited debates on topics that were believed to be settled, creating fresh grounds for discord.
One concerning example is the endorsement of petitions with clear potential to inflame communal passions. Rather than dismissing such petitions, their acceptance by the judiciary has led to heightened tensions. These decisions can be seen as indirectly legitimizing the agendas of radical groups. Such actions undermine the judiciary’s credibility as a neutral and unbiased institution, raising questions about the motivations behind these choices.
Leadership within the judiciary significantly influences its direction and ethos. Critics argue that under certain leadership, such as that of Chief Justice Chandrachud, the judiciary has taken a controversial turn. Decisions perceived as aligning with radical ideologies have eroded trust in the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality.
The metaphor of releasing a “bottled jinn” aptly describes the situation. Once communal discord is unleashed, containing its effects becomes nearly impossible. The responsibility to maintain peace and prevent such outcomes lies squarely on the judiciary’s shoulders. Ill-advised judgments not only risk immediate unrest but can also leave lasting scars on the nation’s secular and democratic identity.
The rise of fanaticism in democratic institutions is alarming. It suggests an attempt to permanently alter the fabric of governance, favoring exclusion and division over inclusion and harmony. Such tendencies disregard the consequences of their actions, prioritizing ideological goals over the nation’s stability.
In these testing times, the judiciary must exercise utmost prudence. It should critically evaluate the implications of its decisions and prioritize the preservation of peace and societal harmony. Rejecting petitions that threaten communal balance is not just a legal imperative but a moral one.
The judiciary must act as a beacon of hope, steering the nation toward justice and equality. Failure to do so risks plunging the country into an era of heightened polarization and unrest. Only by reaffirming its commitment to impartiality and democratic values can the judiciary restore faith in its role as a cornerstone of democracy.
