Justice Deferred: How Delay Has Become a Tool of Power in India
Justice Deferred: How Delay Has
Become a Tool of Power in India
India’s judicial system
increasingly appears to have mastered the art of selective urgency. Justice is
neither denied outright nor delivered in time. Instead, it is delayed,
postponed, and quietly neutralized for those deemed insufficiently powerful to
deserve it. In a constitutional democracy, this is not a procedural flaw. It is
a systemic failure.
Over the decades, India has
continued to function under a legal culture that often prioritizes hierarchy
over equality. One could argue that even the Indian National Congress, despite
its stated democratic commitments, failed to treat judicial reform as a
foundational necessity. The result is a system that, at times, resembles the
social logic of Manusmriti more than the spirit of a modern constitution.
In a well-functioning democracy,
court cases must be time-bound and decided strictly on merit. Matters that
directly affect the constitutional framework of the nation should be heard on
an expedited basis. Instead, India has normalized indefinite delays. Cases of
enormous national consequence are frequently “tagged,” “listed later,” or
shelved for reasons of convenience rather than justice.
A stark example is the legal
change enacted in 2023 by the Bharatiya Janata Party government, granting
lifetime immunity to Election Commission officials. This level of protection is
not available even to the Prime Minister or the President of India. The law was
challenged in December 2023 before the Supreme Court of India, yet the matter
was not taken up with urgency. The delay allowed the law to remain operational
during a critical electoral period, raising serious concerns about
institutional neutrality.
Recently, the Chief Justice of
India issued notices to the government and the Election Commission of India,
indicating that the court would examine the legality of the appointment process
for election commissioners. On the surface, this appears to be a welcome and
reasonable step. However, without a clearly defined, time-bound process, such
reviews risk becoming procedural pauses rather than instruments of
accountability. Until a judgment is delivered, the contested law continues to
govern the system.
If constitutional questions of
this magnitude are allowed to linger indefinitely, the democratic promise of
India becomes difficult to defend. What remains is a structure that
increasingly resembles pre-independence governance, where rights were concentrated
among a few and the majority had limited access to justice. Crimes affecting
ordinary citizens are overlooked or delayed, while those accused of plundering
public resources are often granted swift relief and procedural comfort.
Political leaders continue to
speak of India becoming a “Vishwaguru,” a moral and intellectual leader to the
world. Yet leadership is not proclaimed through slogans. It is demonstrated
through institutions that function independently, transparently, and fairly. A
nation cannot claim global moral authority while its justice system struggles
to provide timely hearings to its own citizens.
History offers repeated warnings
about what happens when legal systems lose legitimacy and financial and
political power concentrates without accountability. Democracies erode not only
through authoritarian laws but through silence, delay, and selective
enforcement.
Justice delayed is not merely
justice denied. In today’s India, it risks becoming justice repurposed,
reshaped to serve power rather than restrain it. If courts do not reclaim
urgency as a constitutional duty, the rule of law will continue to weaken, and
democracy will survive only in form, not in substance.
Comments
Post a Comment