Justice in Shackles: When the Supreme Court Becomes a System of Delay, Overreach, and Silence

Why did Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar feel compelled to warn the judiciary? Why did senior BJP leaders like Kiran Rijiju and Nishikant Dubey openly criticize the Supreme Court? These aren’t just political statements—they are alarms ringing in the heart of Indian democracy. The credibility of our judiciary, once hailed as the guardian of constitutional values, is now under intense public scrutiny—not just for its rulings, but for what many perceive as its systemic failures, ideological biases, and opaque functioning.

Dhankhar’s concern wasn’t born in a vacuum. His sharp commentary came after a long list of judicial inconsistencies, where decisions seem to favor the elite, delay justice for the common man, and shelter a select group of influential lawyers and judges. “Can the judiciary direct the President of India?” Dhankhar asked pointedly, questioning the very limits of judicial authority. If that boundary is crossed, he warned, we may as well “rewrite the Constitution.”

It is not just the Vice President who has spoken. Earlier also in 1991-95 during Narsimharao govt of congress,I have came across such instances about immoral activities & some anti national attitudes & behaviours of some judges on supreme courts of Bharat .During those days  Shri Hansraj Bhardwaj was the union law minister .

Now after Shri Dhankar & Shri Bhardwaj ,present Union Minister Kiran Rijiju’s words were even more direct: “If you encroach on the domain of Parliament, then don’t be surprised if the government begins to look into judicial territories too.” The message was clear—judicial overreach will no longer be tolerated in silence.

Such statements emerge from growing discontent with how certain landmark cases are handled. Take the case of Pakistani terrorist Mohammad Arif, the mastermind behind the 2000 Red Fort attack that killed three Indian soldiers. Though arrested within days, his case dragged through the courts for 24 years—thanks to a system that grants endless reviews, curative petitions, and mercy pleas. This slow churn of justice turns accountability into absurdity. Now, senior advocates like Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argue that this delay itself is “cruel” and may become grounds to halt his execution. The system’s delay becomes the criminal’s defence.

Take the case of Dr. Kamal Taori, a former IAS officer in Uttar Pradesh.He had filed a report against misbehaving by bus driver and conductor of UP roadway.Despite pursuing long years .his case lingered in legal limbo for 29 years, conveniently concluding only after his retirement. Justice delayed wasn’t just justice denied—it became a mockery of justice itself.

Then there’s Justice Gopal Gowda of the Karnataka High Court, caught in a compromising scandal at a Mysore resort. Despite the weight of the allegations, legal theatrics and institutional silence ensured his acquittal. Such outcomes erode public trust and embolden judicial impunity.

Even the highest echelons are not immune. Former Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal was embroiled in a blatant conflict of interest when his official residence allegedly doubled as the registered office for his family’s business ventures. Media exposés, including those by Mid-Day, highlighted the breach, yet the case disappeared into silence—no inquiry, no Corruption in the Indian judiciary is no longer a shadowy suspicion—it’s a glaring, documented truth. 

Corruption in the Indian judiciary is no longer a shadowy suspicion—it’s a glaring, documented truth. When crores are found at the residence of Justice Yash Verma in Delhi and yet no FIR is filed, one must ask: are judges above the law? Even Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has raised alarm over this rot. If the guardians of justice operate without scrutiny, what hope remains for democracy? The silence is not just deafening—it’s damning. This is not judicial independence; it’s judicial impunity. And unless the system is held accountable, the very foundation of justice in India stands compromised.

Since Independence, numerous instances of judicial corruption have surfaced—thanks to the media and vigilant citizens—but shockingly, most of these cases have quietly vanished into obscurity. Why? Because the judiciary, shielded by its own opaque mechanisms, continues to operate without accountability.

Take Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court, found guilty of misappropriating public funds. He avoided impeachment by resigning, a convenient exit route. Justice P.D. Dinakaran, accused of land grabbing, followed the same path—resignation without consequences. Justice C.S. Karnan, a sitting Madras High Court judge, was jailed for contempt—not for corruption, but for daring to speak out against fellow judges. The irony is painful.

These aren’t isolated events—they reflect a systemic failure. There is no independent watchdog to monitor judicial conduct. The collegium system, where judges appoint judges, is a closed-door cartel, devoid of transparency or public scrutiny. Attempts to question it are swiftly punished.

Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju was unceremoniously transferred after criticizing the collegium system—comments that aligned with PM Narendra Modi’s vision of transparency and meritocracy, not dynastic privilege. But it seems even the Prime Minister’s reformist ideals are stifled when it comes to the judiciary. This is not justice—it is judicial feudalism.There is no denying that the Indian judiciary has, at times, risen to protect the rights of citizens—expanding the ambit of Article 21 to guarantee everything from privacy to clean drinking water, enforcing the Right to Education, and safeguarding the environment. These interventions have shaped public welfare and advanced constitutional morality. But over time, this judicial activism has mutated into judicial overreach.

Instead of playing its constitutional role, the judiciary has often begun micromanaging the executive—intervening in COVID-19 management, lockdown enforcement, vaccine distribution, and even the internal functioning of Parliament. This blurring of institutional lines has weakened governance and set dangerous precedents, where unelected judges dictate policy without accountability.

Meanwhile, the common Bhartiya continues to be crushed under the weight of a broken system. The widow of a soldier slain in the 2000 Red Fort attack still awaits justice as the terrorist’s case drags on for 24 years. 

Victims of everyday crimes—hit-and-runs, assaults—wait endlessly for hearings. Poor undertrials lm in jails for minor offences, while influential criminals manipulate the system and delay justice for decades.

This is not what the Constitution envisioned. A judiciary that strays from its mandate while failing the people it was meant to protect is no longer a pillar of democracy—it becomes its burden.

The Supreme Court of India is not a sovereign, untouchable monolith—it is a constitutional body meant to serve the people within the bounds of law, reason, and accountability. However, the disturbing revelations made by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi force us to confront an ugly reality: India’s judiciary, especially the apex court, is no longer a neutral arbitrator of justice. It is allegedly compromised, manipulated, and captured by elite legal fixers—individuals like Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dushyant Dave, and Prashant Bhushan—who seem to dictate its decisions, timelines, and priorities.

Justice Gogoi openly admitted that the judiciary is in the grip of fixers who pull the strings from behind the curtain. He warned that unless this rot is cleaned out, India’s goal of becoming a $5 trillion economy will remain a pipe dream. The system is so corroded, he said, that an average citizen—especially from the middle or lower classes—cannot dream of justice. Only the ultra-rich can afford it, often using the very lawyers who manipulate the system to “advise” judges on what verdicts to give.

The examples are damning. BJP’s Kirit Somaiya was denied anticipatory bail by three courts. Yet, Teesta Setalvad, who misused donations to buy luxury goods and even liquor from airport duty-free stores, received a Supreme Court stay against arrest—within minutes—via a phone call from Sibal. This was an unprecedented telephone hearing, bypassing all legal norms. Anti National Rana Ayyub did the same—diverted funds, made illegal fixed deposits in her father’s name, and yet, the Mumbai High Court declared ₹5 crore “not a large amount.”

And who can forget the bulldozer action in Jahangirpuri in Delhi ? Those were the big hurdles in the path of development,but within minutes of action starting, the same legal cartel—Sibal, Dave, Bhushan—rushed to the Supreme Court and got an instant stay order. Why ? Is this not anti national & anti development activities of our country??When was the last time the Supreme Court showed such urgency for a poor undertrial or a soldier’s widow?

These examples confirm what Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar and former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju have warned repeatedly—the judiciary cannot intrude into the domain of Parliament and still expect immunity from scrutiny. 

If judges overreach, the executive and the legislature have every right to hold them accountable. The Supreme Court is not above the Constitution. It is not a unitary power. It is answerable—like every institution in a democracy. And it must be reminded of that—loud and clear.

The Supreme Court’s decision to proceed with the elections in Jammu and Kashmir, despite the ongoing security concerns and unrest in the region, raises serious questions about the Court’s approach. By not waiting until the situation was fully restored, the Court arguably prioritized political expediency over the safety and well-being of the people in the region. The decision seems to have disregarded the complex security dynamics and the result of terrorist attacks, particularly from groups like The Resistance Front (TRF), as we had seen recently in Pahalgam in Jammu & Kashmir.

In this context, the Court’s hurried verdict has led some to question whether the judges are, in fact, acting as agents of those forces intent on undermining India’s unity and integrity. Critics argue that judicial decisions, in this instance, appear to favor an agenda of political consolidation over national security. There is a growing perception that the Supreme Court, instead of maintaining its neutral stance, has, at times, bent under external pressures, thus inadvertently facilitating policies that threaten the sovereignty of the nation. By rushing into elections without fully addressing the security situation, the Court may have created an environment where its actions seem more aligned with the agenda of destabilizing forces than with upholding India’s constitutional integrity and unity.

So I appeal Some Supreme Court judges with folded hands that please see priorities the development of our country not spare any anti Bharat or anti development agenda in the name of the laws & constitution.