Back
's Critique of Judiciary and Press Draws Sharp Counter-Narrative on Past Record
In a thought-provoking lecture that has ignited debate across legal and media circles, Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal delivered a scathing critique of what he termed the “hollowing out” of India’s democracy from within. Speaking at the Prem Bhatia Memorial Lecture, Sibal accused both the judiciary and the press of abandoning their constitutional duties—but his remarks have been met with a forceful counter-narrative that questions his own historic role in the very institutional failures he now decries.
A Lecture Amid Tightening Controls
The speech comes at a pivotal moment, just after the ’s amendments to the , which empower the government to take down content deemed fake or false by a notified . Sibal argued that these rules represent an , reducing a significant section of television and digital media to what citizens now call “Godi media”—outlets that amplify official narratives and marginalize opposition voices.
He pointed to India’s rank of 157th out of 180 on the World Press Freedom Index, and cited the of investigative journalist Ravi Nair in a filed by as a “chilling marker” of how powerful corporate interests can punish critical journalism.
Judicial Erosion from Within
On the judiciary, Sibal lamented the continued incarceration of JNU scholar Umar Khalid under the for over five years without trial. He argued that the principle of “” has been abandoned. “When stretches into half a decade under a law whose design invites abuse, the distinction between investigation and punishment collapses,” he said.
He criticized the Collegium system as a “total disaster,” marked by opacity and alleged complicity in targeting independent judges through sudden transfers and delayed appointments. Sibal also recalled the ’s brief ban on a Class 8 civics textbook chapter discussing as evidence of an institution intolerant of its own scrutiny.
The Counter-Narrative: A Record Under Scrutiny
But a rebuttal published in the wake of Sibal’s lecture has turned the lens back on the senior advocate himself. The counter-article reminds readers of Sibal’s own defense of Justice V. Ramaswami—the first judge to face in India—against 14 proven charges of financial misconduct. Sibal argued for nearly six hours in the judge’s defense in Parliament. Following that defense, then-Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao gave Sibal a ticket, launching his political career.
The piece also notes that Sibal represented Lalu Prasad Yadav in the fodder scam case, calling the allegations “baseless,” only for evidence to later emerge leading to Yadav’s and . Sibal’s legal role for Rao in the and the Lakhubhai Pathak are also highlighted, raising questions about the very institutional integrity Sibal now invokes.
Institutional Failures: A Bipartisan History
The response underscores that pressure on the media is not a new phenomenon. It documents restrictions under governments—from the 1960 Newsprint Policy to the 1972–73 restrictions that led publishers to challenge the government in court. It recalls the anti-defamation law brought by Rajiv Gandhi’s government, and the physical attacks on newspapers in Bihar under Lalu Yadav and in Uttar Pradesh under Mulayam Singh Yadav.
“How can he suppress or forget the historical record of pressure exerted on the media and the judiciary by governments in the past?” the article asks, suggesting Sibal’s critique conveniently omits inconvenient parts of history.
The Core Tensions
Sibal’s speech resonates powerfully with those who see the current era as uniquely threatening to democratic institutions. He warned, “If one institution is concerned about self-preservation and the other is busy building narratives suiting the State, democracy will not survive.” Yet his critics question whether he is the right messenger, given his past proximity to power and his role in defending the very kind of institutional compromise he now condemns.
The debate raises fundamental questions about who has the moral authority to critique institutional failures. As the IT Rules continue to reshape the digital landscape and the judiciary grapples with issues of independence and accountability, Sibal’s lecture and the reaction to it force a difficult reckoning: Can the pillars of democracy be restored when both their defenders and their critics share in the legacy of erosion?
A Call for Honest Reflection
Ultimately, the exchange underscores that accountability must apply to all—not just those currently out of power. As Sibal himself put it, “ is not an abstract resource; it is the only foundation of judicial authority.” The same might be said of the media. Whether this moment of introspection will lead to substantive reform or be swallowed by partisan recriminations remains to be seen. What is clear is that the two pillars Sibal spoke of require both structural strengthening and a willingness among those who have held power—including Sibal himself—to confront their own roles in the decline.
