How Supreme Court’s New Tone Is Rattling Opposition and Activist Lawyers

Poonam Sharma 
Behind the walls of Indian judicial politics, there is a quiet tempest brewing. A series of recent Supreme Court rulings—specifically in the matters involving the movie Udaipur Files, the petitions of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, and the exercise of revising voter lists in Bihar—are causing shockwaves within the opposition and among elite legal fraternity. What these instances point towards is a larger shift in how the country’s highest court is functioning one that is both legally and politically significant.

Until now, there was a trend seen where big decisions had a tilt towards civil liberties activists, celebrity lawyers fighting for political causes, and NGOs advocating minority causes. But in seeming departure, the recent verdicts of the Supreme Court indicate a more legalistic, restrained, and hopefully neutral tone—something that is not found in ideological narratives.

Case 1: Udaipur Files and the Attempt to Block Its Release
At the center of one such legal maelstrom stands the movie Udaipur Files, which fictionalizes the gruesome beheading of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur after comments concerning Prophet Muhammad. The movie refers to the violent aftermath of the Nupur Sharma controversy—a topic that naturally provoked the wrath of Islamic bodies such as the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.

The Jamiat, which was again represented by the very same Kapil Sibal, moved the Delhi High Court requesting a ban on the release of the film based on communal sensitivity and the fear that it may create unrest. The argument was that the movie could set riots ablaze and adversely affect secular harmony. The court, though, didn’t agree to the contention. Rather, it directed the special screening of the petitioners and confirmed the approval of the Central Board of Film Certification, which had cleared the movie with 15–20 cuts.

Further, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, seeking an injunction. The bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and J.B. Pardiwala declined to issue a stay for the release, declaring there was no urgent merit in the matter. The movie, which was to be released on July 11, was given a free run. The court, rather, told the petitioners to approach a regular bench post-July 14 if they still had issues.

This ruling is not only regarded as a judicial validation of free expression but also as a warning that emotional storytelling will not be tolerated unless there are substance-based legal grounds.

Case 2: Bihar Voter List Verification and Opposition Panic
In another turn of events, opposition parties came together to oppose the Election Commission’s revision of special voter list in Bihar. The exercise sought to refresh electoral rolls after a gap of two decades long, through door-to-door authentication. The petitioners accused this of disenfranchising marginalized groups, including illegal immigrants who have merged into the electoral process over time.

Once more, Justices Dhulia and Pardiwala presided over the bench. Instead of staying the exercise, the court listed the case for a full hearing on July 10 and declined to grant interim relief. In its affidavit, the Election Commission explained that the exercise was not specific to Bihar but would shortly be applied to the whole of India, including West Bengal and Assam—where illegal immigration is humongous in size.

This has shaken up opposition-ruled states, particularly Mamata Banerjee’s West Bengal, where the possibility of NRC-type exercises has already caused political hysteria. The fear is that unless illegal residents can provide valid evidence of citizenship, they will be disenfranchised—reshaping electoral math significantly.

The Broader Shift: Pressure and Paranoia
These two choices are not in isolation; they are part of a broader tendency. A number of activist lawyers, and most prominently Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi—both Rajya Sabha members with successful legal practices—are increasingly being spotted handling such politically high-stakes cases. Their control over public interest litigation, human rights discussions, and political controversies is now apparently being challenged.

The apprehension among such legal-political aristocrats is double:

Loss of Influence – As new judges are appointed who might not be ideologically in line with their predecessors, the court climate is shifting. The expectation that some pleas would automatically receive sympathetic hearings no longer exists.

Transforming Collegium Dynamics – The new appointments, during the tenure of CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and his ab-initio successor, Justice B.R. Gavai, reflect a deliberate balancing attempt to put meritocracy, constitutional interpretation, and transparency first, and not ideological or emotional gravitas.

A Crisis for Advocacy Entrepreneurs?
Opposition’s discomfort does not stop at legal strategy but intrudes into the profession and business models of top lawyers who have developed networks over decades. Multi-crore law firms that work at the intersection of law and politics might find it more difficult to shape judicial orientation in this new configuration. That the political parties choose them for ideological cases has now turned into a double-edged sword.

Additionally, the government’s recent move to make documentation of property compulsory for voter registration—a decision that is being challenged—also endangers these networks. With documentation becoming the priority, informal properties and questionable claims of voters (tied often to vote banks) might get left behind.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi himself conceded, at a Supreme Court hearing, that more than 4.8 crore properties in India remain unregistered. Any legislation requiring ownership evidence of domicile for voting rights will inevitably disturb long-standing political balances—particularly in illegal settlement-vulnerable areas such as West Bengal and Assam.

What Lies Ahead
With the Supreme Court’s summer recess ending on July 14, several key verdicts are expected soon—including one related to a controversial amendment law. CJI Gavai has been actively consulting legal and public stakeholders to ensure that upcoming rulings are not just constitutionally sound but also socially acceptable.

There is widening discussion in legal circles regarding whether the judiciary is gradually drifting away from activism towards a culture of institutional discipline and procedural justice. If that is true, then those who have long profited from strategic litigation and pressure in the media may find the ground slipping from beneath their feet.

The next five or six days may be decisive in cementing this trend. If the forthcoming judgments are just as stern in tone, it will be a clear shift in India’s highest court—one that redefines not just judicial conduct but the legal-political environment surrounding it.

In this changing landscape, one thing is clear: the Supreme Court seems to be asserting its independence more firmly than before, and those accustomed to bending the system with emotional narratives and political muscle are finding themselves cornered. A new judicial era may just be dawning.