India's constitutional framework was firmly built on the pillars of secularism and judicial independence. These institutions were designed to protect minority rights and maintain checks on executive power. The judiciary was envisioned as an impartial guardian of constitutional values that would not succumb to political pressures and majority sentiments.
However, the system of appointment and transfer of judges shows that this is no longer the case. The Law Commission of India, in its 14th report, observed that communal considerations and executive influence had already begun to prevail in judicial selections. Judges who delivered verdicts unfavourable to the executive found themselves superseded, while those whose judgments aligned with government interests were rewarded with promotions and plum postings.
This didn’t happen overnight. It started gradually.
The Turning Point
The erosion accelerated with the Babri Masjid verdict, a decision that fundamentally altered the relationship between law, faith, and evidence in India's highest court. The Supreme Court agreed with claims that a structure existed under the 400-year-old mosque, despite archaeological evidence pointing to the contrary.
More troublingly, the court accorded legal status to a deity based on an epic written in 200 BCE, setting a dangerous precedent where faith-based claims would gain supremacy over empirical evidence. The former Chief Justice, one of the judges to deliver that judgement in 2019, himself called the mosque's erection an "act of desecration," revealing a bias that irreparably damaged the court's standing as an impartial arbiter.
The verdict contradicted its own stated principle that titles cannot be decided on faith, yet proceeded to do exactly that. By this logic, as critics noted, Muslims in any country could claim ownership of spaces where they held prayers, rendering property law meaningless.
Article 370
If the Babri Masjid case revealed the court's willingness to put faith before evidence, the Article 370 verdict exposed how judicial reasoning could be guided by political objectives. The unanimous 2024 ruling on Article 370's revocation was supposed to be decided on legal merit, based on established constitutional provisions and the original agreement between Jammu & Kashmir and New Delhi.
Instead, the court observed that statehood would be decided "considering ground realities," thus constitutional principles while serving political goals. The verdict ignored previous precedents in Sampat Prakash and others cases, reinterpreting history to serve a new political narrative. After the majority influence mantra had worked in delivering the Ram Temple verdict, it now operated with equal effectiveness to ratify the government's Kashmir policy.
Institutional Capture
The degradation didn't happen overnight but through systematic mechanisms that compromised judicial independence. Judges, increasingly concerned about securing lucrative post-retirement appointments controlled by the executive, became cautious about delivering verdicts that might displease the government.
When the BJP-government attempted to create the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2014 to replace the collegium system, it was widely seen as an attempt to increase executive control over judicial appointments. Though the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, the pressure on judicial independence persisted through other means.
The judges themselves see religious practices through a cultural lens that naturalises majority dominance, through emphasis on preserving cultural heritage.
Erosion of Minority Rights
In contexts where a particular religion is dominant, courts may implicitly or explicitly frame religious symbols or practices as cultural norms rather than distinct religious acts. This allows judges to define religious practices as cultural, thereby exempting them from the scrutiny that explicitly religious acts would receive under secular constitutional principles. Personal religious beliefs, whether consciously or unconsciously, influence judicial understanding and application of the law.
Thus, we see a lack of consistency in protecting minority rights through legal reasoning that treats majority practices as neutral cultural baselines while treating minority practices as particularistic religious demands requiring special justification.
The politicisation of Armed Forces
The decay of institutions extends beyond the judiciary to the armed forces, traditionally insulated from partisan politics. The BJP and RSS combined to hatch a conspiracy of politicising these institutions, with the government appointments committee selecting generals who were politically ambitious and willing to make partisan statements on behalf of the ruling party. Military officers began issuing provocative rhetoric that aligned with political objectives rather than maintaining professional neutrality.
This politicisation has dangerous consequences, creating cycles of military adventurism and retaliatory actions. Incidents like Pulwama, whether scripted or spontaneous, become pretexts for operations that serve political rather than strategic purposes.
India and Pakistan cannot afford to keep Kashmir's Muslim population hostage to reckless military policies seen as aggressive and destabilising.
The Human Cost
The destruction of the Babri Masjid highlighted the failure of secularism in India and divided the country along religious lines. The BJP's vision of creating a Hindu rashtra, supported by the VHP and other militant umbrella groups working to convert Muslims and Christians, has found institutional support in a compromised judiciary and politicised military.
This positioning of the minorities also disrupts the efforts for conflict resolution of Kashmir, which is Muslim region. In the medium and long term, a framework must be established that can bring an end to wars and military confrontations, but such frameworks require robust, independent institutions capable of resisting political pressure and upholding constitutional principles.
Have you liked the news article?