Clowns in Gowns or Custodians of Justice? The Judiciary’s Bias is Now in Broad Daylight

By Poonam Sharma

It was just a while ago — figuratively speaking — that the judiciary took off the black cloth from its eyes, the metaphorical blindfold symbolizing impartiality. But rather than vision ushering in wisdom, it has apparently ushered in selective blindness. The Supreme Court, hitherto hailed as the ultimate citadel of neutrality, is now beginning to resemble an institution that functions on a cultural void, detached from the nation’s pulse and ominously aligned with one side of the social divide.

The recent Waqf Amendment Act hearings in the Supreme Court have stripped off the final veneer of judicial impartiality. When people had to undergo decades of court struggle merely to establish that Bhagwan Ram was born in Ayodhya — in his own country, to boot — it’s depressing to observe how far the judiciary will go to guard Waqf claims over plots of land well known to everyone to be properties of the government. And worse, this judicial largesse is being bestowed upon those who do not always possess clear histories, doctored records, and a past that is not quite in sync with India’s civilizational ethos.

Where is the Hindu Board to balance out the Waqf Board? Why does the Supreme Court not query this imbalance? Why is the Hindu community consistently left to defend itself, when the interests of the Muslim community are protected by institutional mechanisms — and now even by the Supreme Court? Muslims Already got their land in Pakistan and Bangladesh .Why cant the British Legacy which they carry in the gowns understand this ?

Here, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s inflammatory but valid remark — “Shut down the Parliament if Supreme Court is going to decide everything” — was not a threat. It was an alarm. If elected lawmakers, representing millions, are to be second-guessed, overruled, or humiliated round the clock by an unelected, unaccountable, and increasingly ideological judiciary, then what is Parliament’s role in contemporary India, really?

Rather than supporting Dubey’s rightful grievances, BJP President JP Nadda opted for appeasement. He dissociated himself from Dubey, indirectly granting moral legitimacy to the very judiciary that has been operating as a colonial relic — an elite club of “clowns in gowns” continuing the tradition of Macaulay’s India. The question one should ask here is: Is Nadda cowering? Or is the BJP leadership now more concerned about appearance than about upholding the constitutional ethos and cultural justice?

The same Supreme Court that lectures state governors on giving assent to Bills within a “reasonable timeframe” is conspicuously silent when Hindu temples are encroached upon, when priests are attacked, or when children die in riots in Bengal. Speaking of Bengal — the same state where political violence and communal targeting of Hindus has become routine — has the judiciary ever taken suo moto cognizance? Where is the judicial outrage when mobs rampage on Ram Navami or Durga Puja?

Instead, the court prefers to moralize over the participation of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards — and then joins the petitioners in questioning it. How is that not a cry of institutional partiality?

The Indian judiciary today is heading down the perilous slope of  unitary authoritarianism — hardly different from either Pakistan or Bangladesh, where either the courts serve the establishment or are openly biased. This incremental encroachment of ideology shrouded in legalese is what’s making the judiciary a player instead of a referee on the court — and not an unbiased one at that.

There is something grotesquely melodramatic in courts deploying Article 142 — a constitutional “nuclear button” — to step into policy issues, and ignoring the systemic injustices perpetrated on the majority. This is not justice. This is agenda-setting masquerading as jurisprudence.

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar correctly equated Article 142 to a nuclear missile that can destroy democratic institutions. And he isn’t wrong. The excess and abuse of judicial power isn’t a theory anymore. It is present. It is palpable. And it is ominous.

Under such a climate, to denounce judicial activism is not merely a political imperative — it is a civilizational imperative. The judiciary’s role is to interpret laws, not establish a parallel moral code that supersedes the legislature. If courts start acting like de facto legislators, then democracy has already been watered down.

Let us make no mistake — JP Nadda’s desertion of Nishikant Dubey is political cowardice only. It is a affront to the millions of Indians who are realizing the selective activism of the judiciary. If the BJP cannot support one of their own who has the temerity to utter inconvenient truths, what does it tell the rest of the country?

Why does only a single type of historical narrative, one type of religious community, and one type of institutional grievance receive prominence? When would the judiciary become aware that the nation it exists to serve is not just years younger than those British-era books that it loves so much, but has a soul, culture, and a memory that far precedes these?

This isn’t a plea to disrespect the judiciary — this is a plea to take it back. A plea to regain balance. A plea to be brave. If our courts desire to regain the trust of the people, then they need to start by being honest about their own biases and changing direction. Justice not only needs to be blind — justice needs to be fair.

Otherwise, the day is not distant when the judiciary itself will have to confront the ire of a democracy which will no longer accept selective justice in the garb of constitutional obligation.

The drama has just begun — and this time around, the people are watching with open eyes.