UN Flags Alarming Erosion of Judicial Independence in India

UN Flags Alarming Erosion of Judicial Independence in India

It is indeed a startling turn of events that has attracted a lot of headlines both in the legal and political arena, and it has been noted by United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) which heads a letter to the Government of India, expressing serious concern over what it terms as a systematic undermining of judicial independence in India. The claims turn out to be the turning point in the history of the Indian judiciary, which was once regarded as the keeper of constitutional democracy and civil liberty.

OHCHR warning

Central to the OHCHR intervention is a grim and disturbing fact: the Indian judicial system might no longer be operating with a strong sense of institutional integrity and impartiality that are basis of a thriving democracy. The communication by the UN is a red signal concerning executive interference, imbalance in the aspect of caste, and the loopholes in the procedure that indicates a systemic drift and can be detrimental to the pillars of the legal system of India.

Inappropriate Executive Appointments and Loose-ends to bypass Control

OHCHR is critical of the murky and erratic selection of the High Court and Supreme Court judges in India. Between January and July 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium (an institution that is constitutionally defined to propose judicial appointments) proposed 111 names. But out of this only 87 were assented to by the Executive. The UN argues that this discrepancy amounts to giving the central government a de facto right to veto, hence defeating the principle of judicial independence in its appointment.

This unselective right to approval postpones justice, as well as jeopardizes the danger of sealing the judiciary with political inclinations. Communication also points out that such interference in appointments is a form of interference in the checks and balance needed in a constitutional democracy.

Conflict of Interest and Post Retirement Appointments

Also contributing to the existing situation is the growing practice of former sitting Supreme Court justices taking up government positions. Between 1999 and 2020, 73 retired judges out of 103 premature appointments of retired judges were awarded positions in different arms of the state which is nearly 70 per cent. This is practiced amid the constitutional clauses (Article 124(7) and 220) which aims at limiting post-retirement legal and governmental functions of judges in the country.

Incentivized bias in Rulings

Although such clauses are meant to provide some insulation to the judges against any conflict of interest, there is still much space to play around with since there are no implemented written rules. The OHCHR cautions against the possibility that such a trend will encourage judges to serve the interests of the Executive in basic expectation of receiving a post-retirement appointment, which will compromise the credibility and impartiality of the court.

Disturbing Caste and Religious Inequality in Jurisprudence Representation

The most incriminating disclosure perhaps is the over bloated caste imbalance in terms of appointment to judgeships. Where of the 661 High Court judges who have been appointed since 2018, a whopping 499 are upper-caste Hindus, mostly Brahmins. Contrastingly, 33 Dalit or Adivasi judges, 78 Other Backwing Classes (OBCs), had been appointed compared to the same period. Worse yet, there is no published information on the representation of the Muslims or Christians in the judicial appointments although they are a significant part of the Indian demographic data.

Inclusiveness is impartial

The same is imbalanced in the high court. Out of the 33 currently sitting judges (not including the Chief Justice), 30 are Hindu; two are women and three are Scheduled Castes, there is one Muslim, one Christian, one Parsi and none other occupying the rest of the seats. The homogeneity of what can be termed the last bastion of justice is an eye-opener on the inclusiveness and representation of India in the legal system.

Case Listing and Allocation Procedural Manipulation

The other major issue indicated in the UN communication is the pertinence of cases not so transparently listed and distributed. The existing judicial process does not require the Chief Justice of India to give the general citizens an explanation as to why he deviates in approaching the set standards of allocating cases. This lack of control allows the possibility of dealing with manipulative listing strategies, particularly in politically sensitive issues.

Various cases of national significance that have gone by in the recent past (such as electoral integrity and constitutional revisions) to the safeguard of religious rights have been met with suspected delays and bench assignments. The OHCHR also observes that, at best, such procedural obscurity can negatively impact on the faith that people have in the overall system, and at worst, it can also massively distort the resolution of cases that define the future development of a democratic nation.

International Scrutiny and International Recommendations

With that in mind, the OHCHR has recommended that the legal problem in India regarding judicial independence be given a case in point in the oral updates of High Commission by which United Nations Human Rights Council is covered. The body has further advised Special Procedure Mandate Holders (SPMHs) to utilize these concerns in their annual reports so that lengthy international focus is maintained.

This international pressure is an indication that the world is increasingly waking up to the fact that the Indian judiciary that has been so strong and fair is now a critical juncture. The Indian Supreme Court erosion of judicial independence is not just an internal issue, there is a global relevance to rule of law, democratic governance and human rights.

Democratic Credibility of India in Question

India also regularly boasts of being the largest democracy in the world emphasized by the fact that it has an independent judiciary. However, the leveling accusations by the OHCHR ripped through this democratic vane. Therefore, revealing such a legal system with an all-time sensitivity to executive opinion, cast-based exclusion, and process manipulation.

Even more is a stake than the justice of individual adjudications. It is even the same legitimacy of the judiciary as an institution; that must be sharply independent to serve the rule of law and defend the constitutional principles. Unless the problem of trust is addressed soon and unless it is done with large-scale urgency (especially in the way in which judges are appointed, in terms of disclosure, and in the diversity of the bench), the erosion of trust in India courts could well become permanent.

Diplomatic Formality?

It is not just a diplomatic formality that the UN is intervening on behalf of India on this impending judicial crisis that continues to deepen. As the global circumspection catches up with India, the country is in a critical situation during its democracy. The systematic defeat of Indian independence of the courts is less a legal issue, more a civilizational issue, of how to preserve justice, equality, and freedoms in the largest democratic state humankind has ever known.

Any reforms that are just lip service are not meaningful. Laying bare the methods of appointment, the regulation of life after retirement, the increase in the representation of marginalized groups as well as codifying norms in case assignment are among the most pressing measures that are required to bring back confidence in the judiciary in India.

The globe is observing. History is so.