Alleged Bad Behaviors Or Criticisms Of The Indian Supreme Court

The appalling conduct of the Indian Supreme Court refers to times in which the top judicial frame has acted or failed to act in attitudes that are contrary to the constitutional ideas of justice, equality, and fairness. This includes allegations of judicial bias, improper political influence, behind schedule justice delivery, loss of transparency with the appointment of judges, and selective hearing of cases. Critics argue that the courtroom every now and then fails to uphold the rights of marginalized communities, avoids addressing urgent constitutional issues, or renders judgments that appear to be to the will of a branch of government. Another shape of appalling conduct involves the abuse of the courtroom docket’s legal guidelines of contempt to stifle dissent and criticism. Additionally, inconsistency in granting bail or staying legal guidelines, and the silence of the courtroom docket on arguable issues, has raised concerns about its impartiality and accountability. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the judiciary and undermines the democratic framework of the U. S. through compromising the independence of the judicial system.

1.Delay in delivering judgments

One of the most criticized elements of the Indian Supreme Court is the complete postponement in handing down judgments on important constitutional and criminal subjects. Important cases like Electoral Bonds, Article 370, CAA, and many others are pending despite the fact that they immediately affect the democratic and civil rights of thousands and thousands of people. In some cases, hearings are completed, but judgments are postponed for months or even years, with no updates. This postponement is not only a countable number of inefficiencies – it is the cause of grave consequences that extend to injustice, erosion of agreement with the judiciary, and coverage confusion. Citizens who are looking forward to the best courtroom docket for well-timed justice are indefinitely delayed. In a country in which the judiciary is the closing mother or father of the Constitution, such delays amount to denial of justice and mirror systemic failure in judicial management and prioritization.

2. Political Bias in Key Judgments

The Supreme Court is supposed to remain impartial and act as a check on the power of officials. However, in recent years, several of its decisions have raised suspicions of political bias. Decisions involving the electoral bond scheme, demonetization, and the abrogation of Article 370 were both years behind schedule or were decided in a way that favored important officials. Critics argue that the Court emerges as hesitant in scrutinizing government scrutiny and fails to enforce effective political actions, especially those of the ruling party. This pattern of behavior, intentionally or no longer, creates an environment of suspicion concerning the independence of the Court. In a functioning democracy, judicial neutrality is crucial, or even the perception of bias harms public trust. The loss of strong dissent in debatable political instances has likewise increased the perception that the judiciary is being compromised or influenced.

3. Lack of transparency in judge appointments

The Supreme Court of India uses the collegium machine to appoint judges to the superior judiciary, including itself. This machine brings together a collection of senior judges to figure out who needs to be promoted or appointed. However, the technique is absolutely opaque. The general public is given no objective say in deciding or rejecting candidates, and the minutes of collegium conferences are regularly withheld or ambiguously worded. There is no outside review, public accountability or impartial oversight. As a result, allegations of nepotism, favoritism and impunity have repeatedly surfaced. Critics have long demanded that the judiciary be transformed into a more transparent and merit-based one based solely on the machine. This is agreeable to the Justice Machine when judges are appointed behind closed doors with little public scrutiny. A cutting-edge democratic group needs to be open to transparency, particularly while it forces those who would retain enormous power over residents’ rights and the nationwide criminal structure.

4. Ignoring Important Cases

The Supreme Court has been accused of deliberately ignoring or delaying hearing pressing national cases. These include cases seeking the repeal of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and the constitutionality of the electoral bond scheme. Despite being filed years ago, many of those cases remain unresolved or unresolved. By refusing to prioritize them, the Court appears to be avoiding politically sensitive decisions, thereby abdicating its constitutional duty. This selective approach creates a hierarchy of urgency that does not reflect the actual importance of a case. When those cases impact thousands and thousands of people, it calls into question the Court’s dedication to justice and constitutional scrutiny. A state of no-action, which no longer justifiably disqualifies citizens for criminal culpability, but also empowers a government agency to evade judicial scrutiny, endangers democratic governance.

5. Inaction on Hate Speech

India has seen a tremendous uptick in hate speech and communal rhetoric, regularly coming from political figures, media personalities, and public platforms. Despite the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court has not taken a strong or consistent stand. Even when petitions are filed against those spreading hate, hearings are behind schedule, and extensions of time are routinely denied. This state of no activity has grave social consequences – it emboldens hate mongers, undermines legal guidelines designed to protect communal harmony, and makes minorities feel unsafe. The court has the authority to take suo motu notice of such instances, but often does not do so. So far, by not addressing the problem with urgency, the Supreme Court is failing in its position as the mother or father of constitutional morality and secular values. Effective judicial intervention should act as a deterrent to hate, but the court’s silence sends a depressing message.

6. Judicial Overreach

While judicial activism is necessary every now and then to exact government or legislative failures, it regularly crosses the road into judicial overreach. The Supreme Court has, at times, issued orders on subjects that belong to the legislative or government domain, including banning firecrackers, figuring out faculty vacations or interfering with administrative policies. Such overreach undermines the precept of separation of powers, which is an essential pillar of the Indian Constitution. When judges act as lawmakers or administrators, it disturbs constitutional stability and regularly ends up in impractical or unworkable decisions. Critics argue that even the judiciary is required to protect rights and interpret legal guidelines, hence chorus from turning it into super-legislism. Moreover, overreach into trivial subjects regularly coincides with a loss of momentum on significant constitutional violations, raising concerns that the judiciary is almost out of priorities and undermining the credibility of the judicial apparatus.

7. Failure to Protect Civil Liberties

One of the Supreme Court’s number one obligations is to protect residents’ civil liberties, which encompasses unfettered speech, non-violent protest, privacy, and protection from arbitrary detention. However, in too many current instances, the Court has not firmly upheld those rights. During protests against the CAA or farmers’ movements, and in areas like Kashmir following the Article 370 repeal, the Court remained inactive or held behind schedule hearings. Petitioners did not receive well-timed relief from onerous extended net shutdowns or detentions below preventive legal guidelines. This failure to behave decisively on civil liberty trouble sends a message that constitutional freedoms are non-negotiable. It additionally emboldens the government to behave oppressively, understanding that there can be no judicial check. A democracy cannot function if its maximum courtroom docket fails to shield its residents from the nation’s overreach and unjust curbs on arbitrary rights.

8. Inconsistency in bail decisions

The Supreme Court has been inconsistent in granting bail to people dealing with comparable charges. While celebrities or politically influential people routinely get hearings and brief bails, many ordinary residents, activists, and undertrial prisoners are continued to be held for months or years. The same legal guidelines like UAPA or Sedition are applied otherwise relied upon depending on who is accused. This inconsistency creates a two-tier justice device—one for the effective and another for the powerless. Bail, formerly, required to be relied upon for reasonable and now privileged. However, selective urgency and judicial discretion with clean requirements have made the method unpredictable in ways that are unpredictable. When the apex courtroom docket fails to create some equity and parity in bail decisions, it deepens the experience of injustice and makes the method of bailing a felony biased, arbitrary, and out of reach for the unusual individual.

9. Lack of Accountability for Judges

Supreme Court judges wield full-size authority, but there is no true accountability mechanism to analyze them for misconduct or corruption. While impeachment is theoretically possible, it is politically difficult and by no means accomplished correctly. There is no impartial frame for investigating critical allegations against judges, nor are disciplinary moves transparent. In many instances in which questions were raised — moving from economic irregularities to partisanship — the device has shielded judges from scrutiny. This loss of accountability undermines the credibility of the judiciary. In a democracy, no group needs to be above complaint or oversight. When judges appear as unaccountable, it damages the trust that residents have with the judicial apparatus. Without reform, the space between energy and accountability will hold on to the judiciary to grow, eroding the thumb guideline of the law.

10. Post-retirement benefits

Many Supreme Court judges obtain political or administrative positions after retirement, including heading commissions, tribunals, or turning up at governorships. While this is not always illegal, it raises important ethical questions. If a selectee expects post-retirement accolades from the government, this can influence how he or she comes up with a decision instances, even on the bench. This compromises the notion of judicial independence and provides an upward push for potential conflict of interest. Many former judges have long gone on to retain politically aligned positions, reinforcing fears that decisions can be swayed through the tools of destiny considerations. This scenario turns into more and more annoying the more judges the government has chosen to appoint, the more they end up grabbing prestigious appointments from the same government. To maintain due independence and impartiality, it has been cautioned that a cooling-off period or a blanket ban on post-retirement appointments needs to be imposed for Supreme Court judges.

11. Refusal to Hear Urgent Cases

One of the most telling styles in recent years is the Supreme Court’s reluctance or refusal to hear urgent cases that involve on-the-spot threats to the essential rights of residents. Cases such as the extended net shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir, illegal detentions under preventive laws, instances of police brutality, and suppression of non-violent protests have no longer received the rapid judicial interest they deserved. When the Court delays such hearings or refuses to prioritize them, the very rights vested with the Constitution emerge meaningless in real-time situations. Justice not done is justice denied, especially when people’s liberty, dignity, or right to loose expression is at stake. Many activists, journalists, and affected residents have waited months or years for an early hearing. Such judicial lethargy undermines the concept of the Supreme Court being the protector of the Constitution and undermines public self-confidence in its accountability.

12. Selective Activism

The Supreme Court of India has proven to have a disturbing tendency towards selective judicial activism – engaging in topics that may be trivial or symbolic while ignoring more immediate constitutional violations. For example, the Court has acted unpredictably in instances relating to firecracker bans, movie releases, or signs on songs nationwide in cinema halls. At the same time, it has averred in hearing instances relating to mass detentions, hate crimes, or constitutional demands for reasoned laws against prostitution. This inconsistency in what the Court has dealt with indicates a distortion of judicial priorities. While minor annoyances capture media interest and may create a perception of activity, the Court’s silence on essential rights violations speaks volumes. Selective activism undermines the moral authority of the judiciary and raises questions about whether its movements are pushed through as a means of public hobby or political convenience.

13. Dismissal without an order

There have been serious times in which the Supreme Court has brushed off petitions with out presenting any definitive or reasoned decision. In such instances, petitioners have been informed about the fact that their petition has been denied, and there is no prison precedent for destiny reference. This practice contradicts the essential ideas of herbal justice, in which every celebrant is entitled to recognize the consideration of selection that affects them. Furthermore, such unreasonable dismissal closes the door to any important observation or appeal. This is particularly complicated in instances involving public hobby, constitutional rights, or systemic reforms. When the summit courtroom docket of the U.S. disturbs cryptic or one-line orders with no explanations, it creates prison confusion and undermines judicial transparency. It additionally deprives residents and prison students from gaining knowledge from the court’s interpretation of the law.

14. Overruling Lower Courts

The Indian judicial apparatus is designed with a clean hierarchy, however hierarchy additionally needs to be facilitated with mutual respect. Increasingly, the Supreme Court has overruled High Court decisions either entirely or with the supply of clean reasons. This fashion can diminish the clout in courts and diminish their constitutional authority. Higher courts are frequently more attentive to local issues and provide quicker comfort than the apex courtroom docket. When their choices are brushed aside casually or arbitrarily, it impacts the credibility of justice in any respect levels. In addition, the perception that the Supreme Court operates in a vacuum harms the coherence of the device with respect to the efforts of lower courts. A healthier judicial shape relies on respect, stability, and collaborative prison reform in all levels—no longer top-down manipulation that overlooks well-deserved, well-judged decisions from higher courts.

15. Weak stance on custodial deaths

Custodial deaths and torture remain a major human rights issue in India. Despite their gravity, the Supreme Court has no longer intervened consistently or strongly to reverse these incidents. While landmark signals like the DK Basu judgment exist, their enforcement is weak. Many custodial deaths go unpunished due to timing or absent judicial intervention. The Court rarely draws suo motu attention except from the media or civil society. Still, the results are often dull and symbolic rather than transformative. Victims’ homes are left with little justice, and police brutality remains unchecked in too many states. Given the judiciary’s function in upholding a fair right to life and dignity, this inaction is worrying. Without strict monitoring, accountability, and enforcement of judicial orders, the cycle of custodial torture and abuse will remain a dark stain on Indian democracy.

16. Weak protection of whistleblowers

Whistleblowers play a vital position in exposing corruption, wrongdoing, and injustice. Yet, the Supreme Court has not presented them with robust criminal protection. Despite passing the Whistleblower Protection Act in 2014, implementation remains poor, and the judiciary has accomplished little to ensure this. Many whistleblowers have been harassed, threatened, or perhaps killed, and yet, in too many instances, the Supreme Court has remained silent or behind schedule in hearing petitions seeking protection. By failing to create a safe criminal environment for the whistleblower, the court not only discourages transparency and responsibility in public life. This inaction additionally undermines anti-corruption efforts. A vigilant judiciary no longer needs to protect those who blurt out the fact lightly, but additionally needs to ensure that the legal guidelines for his or her protection are well enforced. The absence of robust judicial support has left whistleblowers susceptible and justice structures vulnerable.

17. Tolerating a Contempt Culture

The Supreme Court has come under fire, more and more, for selectively using the Contempt of Court Act to silence dissent while at the same time tolerating open insults from political leaders or media figures. Many activists, lawyers, or even retired judges have been held contemptuously for simply expressing critical criticisms about the judiciary. In contrast, prominent political figures who make inflammatory or offensive comments are almost routinely spared any punishment by the judiciary. This double standard undermines the equity of contempt proceedings. The power of contempt, supposed to preserve the dignity of the courtroom docket, is no longer meant to protect it from legitimate criticism. When the court punishes critics selectively, it creates a chilling effect on unfettered speech. A strong judiciary needs to remain open to scrutiny and capitulate in a position to distinguish between malicious contempt and optimistic critique. Unfortunately, this is no longer consistently the case.

18. Overload of PILs

Public interest litigation (PLIs) have been added to the need for marginalized parties to gain access to justice and to address problems of larger social importance. However, the Supreme Court no longer entertains numerous PILs on trivial or publicity-pushed topics. Issues such as banning TV shows, regulating personal college uniforms, or adjusting movie titles have taken up courtroom dock time, at the same time that pressing constitutional problems continue to be addressed. This overload of trivial litigation undermines the credibility of the system and diverts interest from important criminal topics. It also slows down judicial processes and wastes courtroom docket resources. The Supreme Court has no longer established powerful filters to quickly screen out meritless PILs. As a result, the throughput of important activism is diluted, and the unique cause of empowering the disenfranchised is forgotten. Judicial time should be preserved for topics that impact constitutional rights and nationwide interest.

19. Disrespecting citizen voices

There is a developing feeling that the Supreme Court gives extra importance to influential company and political hobbies than to regular citizens. Not uncommonly numerous petitions filed through individuals, activists, students, and farmers are disregarded with special hearings, as well as instances filed through the means of influential organizations are routinely fast-tracked. This pattern indicates elitism in judicial behavior. Citizens who frequent the apex court room docket with grievances rooted in human rights, environmental damage, or social injustice routinely go back with out redress. Such selective interest erodes public righteousness with the institution. When the court fails to prioritize the voices of the voiceless, it deviates from its position as the mother or father of justice for all. True justice must be ignorant of power and privilege. Unfortunately, this compromises impartiality, while the judiciary appears more conscious of being effective than powerless.

20. Ignoring judicial reforms

The Indian Supreme Court has long been lethargic and resistant in implementing sought-after judicial reforms, whether it is aware of the inefficiencies of the system. Issues such as loss of transparency in judge appointments, persistence in adoption of technology, outdated court docket procedures, and inadequate case control structures continue to plague the judiciary. Even though professional committees and criminal students have time and again proposed reforms, little or no has been structurally modified. The Supreme Court needs to lead through the means of example in embracing change, although it has regularly acted defensively while reforms are suggested, particularly the almost collegial system. Courtrooms nevertheless rely on paper files, and important instances are arbitrarily indexed. Without pressing reforms, judicial backlogs, delays, and ambiguity will continue to grow. The Supreme Court, as the country’s maximum criminal authority, needs to be the flagbearer of reform, now no longer an obstacle to it.

21. Politicization of Judges

One of the most disturbing allegations against the Indian Supreme Court is the alleged politicization of some judges. Over the years, several judges were accused of making public statements in favor of particular political events or ideological leanings through their judgments. This undermines the very basis of judicial independence, so vital to a democratic system. When judges appear biased, especially in instances with political implications, it affects citizens’ perceptions of the court’s equity. In some instances, judgments that coincide with the ruling party’s past—observed through the means of those who accept post-retirement appointments—similarly fuel those perceptions. Even if those biases are not proven, the advent of bias can only be harmful. Judicial neutrality is not just a distinguishing characteristic, but it is a necessity to preserve public confidence and constitutional values from political manipulation.

22. Failure of Electoral Reforms

Despite being the remaining mom or dad of democracy, the Supreme Court has no longer proven to be of good urgency in pushing for very good electoral reforms. Issues like the loss of transparency in political funding, the increasing limit of applicants with crooked records, and the open use of faith and caste in election campaigns have all been brought up before the court through various petitions and footnotes. However, the judiciary has both postponed hearings, passed unenviable directions, or deferred the duty to the Election Commission or Parliament. For example, electoral bonds were upheld despite strong arguments that they are difficult to withstand public scrutiny. This failure to intervene decisively has allowed political leniency to take over responsibility, allowing the decline of loose and honest elections. The court’s state of inaction has disillusioned many who see it as a remaining motel towards unchecked political corruption and manipulation.

23. Delay in Death Penalty Review

Cases pertaining to dying sentences are delayed for a very good part of judicial scrutiny due to their irreversible nature. However, in India, the Supreme Court’s evaluation and hearing of mercy pleas in such instances often face unnecessary delays. These delays increase intellectual agony for the convict on dying row and the victims’ homes for each. In many instances, dying row convicts have seen it difficult, even after their appeals have been dismissed, to respond to the attention evaluation petitions or mercy pleas for the President. This extended uncertainty infringes upon the proper for dignity, which also applies to convicted individuals. In some instances, the convicts are received despite pending felony treatment, as certainly befits a reasoned execution. The Supreme Court has an obligation to ensure that those instances are handled with urgency and equity, although cutting-edge practices pose a serious setback for procedural justice and human rights.

24. No action on fake encounters

India has seen alleged faux encounters, in which individuals – often accused of crimes – have been killed under dubious circumstances through the means of the police. Despite the gravity of such extra-judicial killings, the Supreme Court has not made a steady or strong movement to curtail the practice. In high-profile instances like the killings in Uttar Pradesh or Gujarat, the Court has not made timely or decisive intervention. While some points were made with the PUCL vs State of Maharashtra judgment, implementation remains poor. Victims’ homes often struggle for years to even begin an investigation, not to mention dole out justice. The Court’s position of being passive leaves law enforcement corporations to appropriate technology under the guise of regulation and keeping order. In a democratic society governed through the thumb guideline of regulation, silence on faux encounters through the means of the judiciary sends a risky message: that the nation can kill with impunity for hooliganism.

25. Weak enforcement of its own orders

The Supreme Court’s credibility now depends on its commitment not just to its confines for by-passing decisions, but also to ensuring their implementation. Unfortunately, many of the Court’s rulings—particularly in topics related to nation governments or police officers—are ignored or at best ignored in part. Examples include orders on police reforms, prison conditions, environmental safeguards, and minority rights. Often, states simply cease to actually comply or submit superficial reports, understanding that follow-up from the Court is rare. Without strict enforcement mechanisms or accountability for disregard, the meaning of those landmark decisions is lost. Court-ordered protections to citizens are not translated into reality. The judiciary must act decisively to manifest compliance, possibly through committed implementation from the bench or real-time monitoring. Otherwise, judicial authority turns into symbolic, and respect as it relates to Supreme Court orders diminishes significantly in the eyes of the public.

26. Ignoring Environmental Violations

Despite India’s worsening environmental crisis, the Supreme Court has often not meaningfully intervened in instances related to ecological destruction. Large-scale infrastructure and business initiatives—including mines, dams, expressways, and solid improvements—often hold naive approvals no matter what from environmentalists, scientists, and neighborhood groups. The Court has once again chosen financial improvement over environmental sustainability, often upholding dubious approvals granted through the instruments of authorities organizations. Even when environmental violations are actually documented, the judiciary has permitted initiatives to maintain fines or impose penalties to act as a real deterrent. This overprotective judicial stance opposes India’s constitutional mandate to protect the surroundings under Article 48A and the existence proper under Article 21. Environmental protection is not a luxurious, however destiny required generations. The Supreme Court should begin a strict, science-sponsored method to uphold ecological justice.

27. Inaction in Media Regulation

Indian media has emerged as a growing number of polarized and sensationalist, often appearing as a tool for political propaganda or spreading misinformation. Yet the Supreme Court has now not taken powerful steps to deal with media bias, inaccurate information, or the practice of “trial by ordeal through the means of the media,” in which information insurance influences public opinion and judicial proceedings. Despite numerous petitions and public outcry, the Court has either behind schedule hearings or issued modest advisories with concrete directions. Media ethics violations, hate speech through the means of TV anchors, and demonization of positive groups are often not judicially challenged. The absence of criminal requirements or enforcement mechanisms for media responsibility has worsened the crisis. In a democracy, a loose however accountable press is essential. The Supreme Court, as the protector of constitutional morality and freedom, should play an energetic position in balancing loose expression with public order and equity.

28. Lack of Diversity

India is a diverse country, but its maximum courtroom docket exhibits a slender demographic. The Supreme Court adjudicates by means of upper-caste Hindus from elite city backgrounds. Women, Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and individuals from the Northeast remain largely underrepresented. This loss of diversity method that is absent from judicial decision-making in important cultural considerations and living reports. Despite severa calls from civil society and criminal experts to make the bench more inclusive, the collegial gadget has accomplished little to diminish the reputation. This underrepresentation now impacts the most effective symbolic portrayal, however additionally the sensitivity and equity with which instances are heard – actually pertaining to minority or marginalized groups. A judiciary that fails to reflect society is disconnected from the actual demanding situations confronted by means of everyday citizens. Ensuring this is vital for equal and empathetic justice.

29. Failing to protect journalists

Journalists play an essential role in a democracy, through the means of protecting those in power. However, in recent years, many journalists in India have faced harassment, police action, sedition charges or even physical assault for doing their job. Despite this alarming trend, the Supreme Court has often remained silent or acted slowly while reporters sought relief. In instances involving unbiased media houses or investigative reporters, bail has been denied or delayed ahead of schedule, and hearings were postponed indefinitely. This state of no-action discourages press freedom and allows authorities’ organizations to intimidate the media with the worry of judicial reprimand. The Supreme Court should act as the guardian of the Fourth Estate, ensuring that reporters can record without worry of retribution. A democracy with a loose and protected press is liable to lead to authoritarianism, and the judiciary should no longer be complicit in that entrenchment.

30. Legitimizing undemocratic moves

Over the years, the Supreme Court has handed down judgments that legitimize undemocratic movements through the machinations of the authorities. The judgments on demonetization, the repeal of Article 370, electoral bonds, and mass net shutdowns have both upheld or in a roundabout way endorsed debatable government movements with little or no constitutional analysis. This has raised almost serious issues of whether the court is willing to treat these as a fair trial on the strength of the country. Instead of tough arbitrary judgments, the judiciary has appeared eager to assist them in some instances, often citing the country’s broad woes or financial urgencies. When the Supreme Court validates movements that undermine civil liberties or abandons parliamentary scrutiny, it becomes a tool of the government. In a perfect democracy, the judiciary should be fearless and impartial. Its silence—or worse, its criminal approval—undermines the constitutional governance of undemocratic movements.

31. Delayed Listing of Cases

A major challenge with the functioning of the Supreme Court is the postponement in listing instances for hearing. Many high-profile or constitutionally important cases—seeking situations for bail pleas, habeas corpus petitions, election disputes, or debatable legal guidelines—tend to be pending for months or perhaps years to be listed. Often, no purpose is supplied to postpone, leaving the petitioners in a lurch. Such a situation of being passive results in a clean denial of justice, primarily during essential rights are at stake. Arbitrary listing of instances creates an effect of selective priority, wherein both politically touchy or high-impact instances are postponed or deferred, primarily based on subjective internal standards. Without transparency with the listing method, the judicial calendar turns into unpredictable and untenable. The requirement for a Justice Gazette to ensure fair, well-timed hearings is characteristic, particularly in instances in which the postponement of adjudications causes irreversible harm to residents.

32. Secret Collegium Minutes

The Supreme Court’s Collegium Gazette, accountable for appointing and advancing judges, operates with a painful loss of transparency. Decisions are made behind closed doors, and the standards for selection, rejection, or switch are rarely made public in a significant way. While occasional summaries of collegium meetings are published, they can often be indistinct and provide little perception into the purpose behind decisions. This secrecy has brought about suspicions of nepotism, favoritism, and political interference. The judiciary requires transparency from different organs of the state, however fails to maintain it in its own personal house. Without public scrutiny, it is not possible to ensure that appointments are primarily based solely on profit and now not private or political connections. A democratic judiciary needs to be characterized with a mild degree of public accountability – no longer with a shadow of elite consensus. Persistent secrecy undermines credibility and public acceptance of justice gadgets as truth.

33. Harsh punishment for petty criticism

The Supreme Court has every now and then spoken unequivocally to grievance through means of enforcing the Contempt of Court Act. Even valid, constructive, or moderate public grievance by means of lawyers, journalists, activists, or unusual venues has been brought to contempt proceedings. This technique discourages freedom of speech and suppresses the full democratic talk about the judiciary. A mature and confident organization needs to welcome scrutiny, primarily it is primarily based solely on statistics or influenced through means of an alternative to reform. Instead, harsh punishments like fines, public apologies, or perhaps threats of imprisonment are used to silence dissent. The concern of contempt has created a chilling effect, in which many hesitate to speak out towards judicial incapacities or misconduct. Such use of contempt legal guidelines provides the impression that the judiciary is above complaint – as no public organization in a democracy should be. Courts must defend their dignity through reason, now not repression.

34. Bias in Senior Counsel Appointments

Becoming a representative senior advocate with the Supreme Court means notable guarantor benefits and a reputation for contribution to the profession. However, the method is often criticized for being non-obvious and biased. Lawyers with political affiliations, elite backgrounds, or connections with judges are routinely extra qualified, although much less well-connected advocates are deserving. This bias undermines the concept of merit and discourages successful lawyers from marginalized or local backgrounds. No clean standards are observed in nominating senior counsel, and the rejection purposes are rarely communicated. This creates an elitist tradition with the gadget of thuggery in which prestige and possibility are related to connections rather than competence. Also the loss of rank among senior advocates demonstrates this bias. If the judiciary wishes to keep equity and equality inside its personal ecosystem, it needs to rectify this incorrect designation system.

35. Inadequate response to farmers’ issues

During the 2020-21 farmers’ protests towards the 3 debatable farm law guidelines, the Supreme Court did not act with the urgency or empathy predicted in a constitutional democracy. Despite the massive scale of the protests and serious concerns, it upheld the validity of the farm law guidelines, leaving the court behind to address constitutional questions. Instead of handing down a decisive verdict, it shaped a committee that protected recognized contributors to support government policies. This was widely criticized as an attempt to remove the opposite interest from the issue being resolved. Farmers have decried hooliganism, guarantees for minimum support prices (MSP) and fear company management over agriculture, however the judiciary has now not meaningfully interacted with their concerns. For hundreds of thousands of farmers who rely on hooliganism’s gadget for protection, this indifference through the means of the Supreme Court turned into a deeply disappointing and eroded religion in judicial impartiality.

36. Ignoring data privacy issues

In the virtual age, the justification for privatization is primarily relevant to protecting residents from mass surveillance, theft and misuse of data by organizations or governments. Although the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy judgment in 2017 identified privatization as an essential proper, it is now not seen with strong, enforceable alternatives in subsequent instances. Concerns over misuse of Aadhaar, unregulated record chains through private companies, and surveillance actions of authorities have no longer acquired sufficient judicial attention. Petitions involving records were linked to privacy or not timely. In addition, India nonetheless lacks a robust records security regulation, and the court has no longer driven by legislative urgency. Citizens remain prone to record leaks, profiling, and unauthorized surveillance. In a rustic with rapidly developing net use, the absence of criminal safeguards advocated through the very best courtroom dockets leave private freedoms dangerously exposed. The court’s silence undermines virtual democracy.

37. Encouraging Sealed Cover Jurisprudence

The growing use of “sealed cover” submissions through the Supreme Court has raised extreme concerns of almost transparency and equity in judicial proceedings. In this practice, officials businesses place reviewed evidence or intelligence in sealed envelopes that are not proven to opposing events or the public. The court then makes rulings primarily based on that undisclosed material. This undermines the precept of herbal justice, in which every birthday celebration is justified to realize the evidence towards them and contest it. Sealed cover was used in instances concerning the nation’s broader security, media rights, net shutdowns, or even political disputes. Critics argue that this approach permits for controlling narratives with investigations into the government and reduces judicial overview to a formality. While the nation’s broader security is important, it now no longer has to endure blanket excuses for opaqueness. The court must uphold open justice, no longer suspense trials.

38. Weak stance on religious violence

India has seen a few incidents of non-secular violence, mob lynchings and communal riots, primarily focused on minority communities. However, the Supreme Court has rarely taken up strong suo motu motions or passed strict directives to hold perpetrators accountable. Even when petitions were filed – seeking a probe into hate crimes, biased police handling, or political instability – the court did not hold back on timely hearings or gave mild verdicts. On the contrary, an active judiciary must act unpredictably to protect the escalation, punish hate speech and compensate some victims. The loss of urgency that can be proven through the court in such instances sends a message of tolerance towards communal violence. Victims, especially from minority groups, experience desertion through an organization that shields their constitutional rights. In the numerous and pluralistic U.S.A. As in India, the judiciary’s silence on non-secular violence erodes the promise of equal protection underlying the regulation.

39. Gender bias in judgments

Despite developments in girls’ rights, the Supreme Court has produced many judgments that reiterate past and patriarchal thinking. In some rape and sexual assault cases, judges have made comments about girls’ clothing, marital status, or conduct—leading to victim-blaming or moral policing. There were times in which bail became primarily based solely on a “compromise” between the victim and the accused, trivializing extreme crimes. Furthermore, the court has been slow to do some gender justice in topics like marital rape, girls’ temple access rights, and reproductive autonomy. Male-ruled benches often lack the gender-inclusive perspectives its judgments suggest. Without an inclusive and empathetic interpretation of the regulation, judicial choices may even harden social stereotypes as opposed to dismantling them. True Gender Justice calls for a judiciary that no longer just translates regulation, but also understands the true realities of girls in India.

40. Silence on Pegasus spyware

The Pegasus adware scandal, which alleged that Indian journalists, activists, competition leaders and others were illegally surveilled using Israeli adware, has become a major violation of civil liberties. The Supreme Court took months to respond after a few petitions were filed. When it finally acted, it shaped a technical committee, though the findings of the investigation were stored unclear, and no responsibility was established. Eventually, the court closed the case with out naming any accountable incidents or giving a clean verdict about the surveillance, it certainly did occur. This indecent technique appears to be largely an overlooked possibility of maintaining constitutional right to privatization. In a democracy, unlawful surveillance – particularly of critics and competition – calls for pressure and clear judicial resolution. The court’s muted response to this type of extreme violation has raised questions about the willingness to confront the government while civil rights are under threat.

41. Allowing Prolonged Preventive Detention

The Supreme Court has for now faced significant grievance, no longer efficiently intervening in instances pertaining to prolonged preventive detention, primarily beneath legal guidelines like the Public Safety Act (PSA) or the National Security Act (NSA). A top notch example is its inaction after the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir in 2019, while numerous politicians, activists, and citizens were detained for months with out trial. The Court simply did not pay heed to habeas corpus petitions, and in a lot of instances, it denied relief either or both behind schedule. Preventive detention is conceived of legal guidelines, used sparingly and in the very best instances, however their rising misuse to silence dissent is going unchecked. So far no longer attending to hastily or decisively, the Court has permitted violations of private liberties to persist and remain in a reasonable manner. This inaction has eroded the self-assurance that accompanied the judiciary’s dedication to protecting constitutional rights.

42. Misuse of Contempt Powers

The Supreme Court has regularly invoked its contempt powers towards those who criticize the judiciary or raise questions on its functioning. Retaining the idea of a courtroom docket, the use of contempt court cases to silence critics curtails loose speech and creates an environment of anxiety. Activists, journalists, or even retired judges were threatened or punished for expressing their viewpoints on judicial choices or behavior. On the opposite hand, political leaders who undermine judicial authority are often ignored. This selective utility of contempt powers seems biased and defensive. The use of contempt legal guidelines needs to be restricted to clean examples of obstruction of justice or malicious falsehood – no longer used to shield the judiciary from public responsibility. In a democracy, public institutions should be open to scrutiny and complaint, and the judiciary needs to lead by example, not stifle dissenting voices.

43. Delays in Constitution Bench Cases

The Supreme Court is responsible for decoding the Constitution, and this responsibility often calls for a five-judge Constitution Bench to settle important judicial questions. However, many major constitutional issues—like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), disputes over federalism, electoral reforms and religious freedoms—were pending for years, with the circumstances demanding judicial guidelines being postponed for hearing. These delays are no longer simple delays in justice, but also create judicial uncertainty across the country. Lower courts are left with no guidance, and governments enact perhaps unconstitutional judicial guidelines with little concern for restraint. The Court’s failure to prioritize those issues leads to a loss of urgency in addressing central democratic principles. Given the enormous consequences of constitutional interpretation, such delays are not just administrative failures – they are denials of justice that undermine the thumb guidelines of regulation and the credibility of the judiciary.

44. Weak action on unconstitutional laws

The Supreme Court has not made strong movement toward many legal guidelines that can be largely criticized as unconstitutional and liable to abuse. Two excellent examples are the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). These legal guidelines grant sweeping powers to the navy and police, often leading to human rights violations, primarily in conflict-involved or minority-ruled areas. Despite some precedents and worldwide concern, the court has refused to strike them down or significantly restrict their use. Instead, it often defers to the executive’s decision with calls for nationwide security. This judicial reluctance emboldens the state to suppress dissent, lock humans up with trials, and use immoderate pressure with no outside responsibility. In a constitutional democracy, the judiciary should stand up to corporations over legal guidelines that infringe on the essential rights of residents.

45. Protecting corrupt politicians

Many residents perceive that the Supreme Court has no longer acted firmly toward corruption involving influential political figures. In several high-profile instances, delayed hearings, extended bail for the accused, or outright dismissals have raised suspicions of leniency or selective justice. No matter the allegations of economic fraud or abuse of power, for example, some politicians continue to escape responsibility due to judicial inaction. This in effect erodes public piety with the justice system. When the judiciary defends ruling leniency in preference to prosecuting wrongdoing, it compromises its own impartiality. The public expects the court to ensure that no individual is above regulation. By no longer dealing vigorously and quickly with political corruption, the court sends a message whose influence can override justice, which is deeply damaging to democratic values.

46. Delay in RTI implementation

For years, the Supreme Court resisted the introduction of under-the-purview of The Right to Information (RTI) Act, which applies to all public institutions. It argued that judicial independence could be compromised if administrative facts and internal discussions – for the viewing of collegial people – were released to public scrutiny. This resistance contradicted the ideas of transparency and responsibility that the Court required from various branches of authorities. Eventually, after a great deal public and lobbying pressure, the Court held the applicability of the RTI to the time being with several exceptions to those who genuinely gain access to genuinely sought information. Transparency with the functioning of the judiciary is vital for public trust. The Court’s reluctance to give concrete shape to the RTI created a double popular and openness to reform loss. When a father or mother of constitutional rights shields itself from transparency, it undermines democratic responsibility at its core.

47. Mismanagement During COVID-19

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, the Supreme Court drew criticism for its lackadaisical response to the crisis. Despite the great suffering – oxygen shortages, overburdened hospitals, mass migration of workers, and mismanagement of the country – the court was called upon to begin with to remain passive and not press the responsibility of authorities. When some higher courts began taking proactive measures, the Supreme Court intervened to restrict its jurisdiction in preference to assisting their proactivity. Many agree with the court that it ignored an ancient possibility to shield lives and hold the government accountable for mismanagement. The lack of a timely response became especially disappointing for the reason that well-meaning judicial intervention could have further coverage impact and stored lives. A constitutional courtroom docket needs to be elevated to this eventuality in emergencies throughout the country. By failing to do so, the Supreme Court left hundreds of thousands of Indians feeling unprotected during their darkest hour.

48. Failure to Curb Judicial Corruption

Allegations of corruption with the judiciary – ranging from favoritism in case lists to monetary misconduct – have surfaced from time to time. However, the Supreme Court in large part has not established an independent, clear mechanism for researching or dealing with such claims. Judges are often not held accountable, and there may be no institutional framework for submitting cases to the court with little concern of retaliation. Even when whistleblowers or former judges raise concerns, they are routinely met with silence or contempt proceedings. This way of life of secrecy protects wrongdoing and discourages internal reform. Without strong oversight, corruption can flourish under a cloak of immunity. A judiciary that expects integrity and ethics from others needs to adhere to the same requirements. Wanting for systemic reform and internal responsibility, the Supreme Court by ignoring risks abandoning the moral authority that is vital for any judicial institution.

49. Ignoring North-Eastern Issues

India’s north-eastern states regularly face political violence, human rights abuses, ethnic conflicts, and forgetfulness by authorities. However, the Supreme Court has not often intervened in topics unique to the surrounding region with the seriousness it suggests for different elements of India. Despite serious petitions involving the misuse of AFSPA, net shutdowns, and ethnic discrimination, judicial responses have been untimely or superficial. The north-east is one of the maximum underrepresented and underserved regions in the discourse of Indian hooliganism. This loss of interest demonstrates the deep discomfort of geographic and cultural bias with the judiciary. A comprehensive nationwide courtroom docket is required to deal with all regions similarly and ensure that justice reaches each citizen, regardless of location. The court has forgotten about the North-East, contributing to a sense of alienation and injustice among its people, which undermines the solidarity and inclusiveness of Indian democracy.

50. Dismissing mass petitions without review

Over the years, the Supreme Court has disregarded numerous mass petitions signed by hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of residents, linked to harshly unpopular or argued laws – the farm bills, the CAA, or electoral reforms – without giving them a full and reasoned hearing. When such massive expressions of public challenge are dismissed with little judicial engagement, it creates a belief that citizen voices are being ignored. Courts are charged with being the last resort for democratic redress, primarily when legislatures and managers fail. Dismissing those petitions, now no longer silences public grievances, but also diminishes the position of judicial evaluation in checking the country’s excesses. Moreover, mass petitions constitute the collective will of humans and need to be dealt with seriously. Ignoring them equates religion with the judiciary and pushes residents to agree that justice in India is not always for everyone, though best for some.

Read Also: