The Judiciary Under Scrutiny: Navigating Trust, Efficiency, and Global Pressures

NEW DELHI – The bedrock of any resilient democracy is an unwavering belief in the rule of law, sustained by the credibility of its judicial institutions. Yet, recent events spanning domestic courtrooms to international forums have placed this foundation under intense scrutiny. From debates on constitutional supremacy and judicial independence to systemic crises of case pendency and the granular standards of the legal profession, the judiciary finds itself navigating a complex landscape where its efficiency, authority, and very legitimacy are being questioned and defended with renewed vigour.

As Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai recently remarked, “Public trust is the judiciary's most valuable asset. It transforms judicial decisions from mere legal orders into instruments of social conscience.” This sentiment encapsulates the core challenge facing legal systems globally: maintaining public confidence while addressing internal frailties and external pressures. This examination delves into the multifaceted controversies shaping the judiciary, from the philosophical underpinnings of constitutionalism in India to the practical realities of delayed justice and the stark challenges to judicial independence on the world stage.

India’s Constitutional Core and its Global Resonance

In a recent keynote address in Bhutan, CJI BR Gavai articulated the Indian judiciary's profound contribution to global constitutionalism through the Basic Structure Doctrine. Originating from the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, this doctrine established that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental essence, safeguarding principles like judicial independence, separation of powers, and the rule of law.

“The significance of the basic structure doctrine extends far beyond India's borders,” CJI Gavai stated. “Jurisdictions across the world have drawn inspiration from this principle, using it to reinforce constitutional supremacy and to guard against the dilution of core democratic values.”

This principle was notably invoked in the 2015 Supreme Court judgment striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act. The Court held that giving the executive a dominant role in judicial appointments would compromise the judiciary's autonomy, a core feature of the Constitution. This decision remains a pivotal, and at times contentious, assertion of judicial independence against perceived executive overreach, underscoring the delicate balance of power inherent in constitutional governance.

The CJI also highlighted the evolution of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and the innovation of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as prime examples of the judiciary acting as the “moral conscience of the Constitution,” expanding rights to include dignity, privacy, and a clean environment, thereby making justice accessible to the marginalized.

The Crisis of Credibility: Pendency and Procedural Bottlenecks

While the Supreme Court champions lofty constitutional ideals, the reality for millions of litigants is a justice system crippled by delay. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) paints a grim picture, with over 5.3 crore cases pending across Indian courts as of 2025. This staggering backlog, as one editorial highlighted, points to a “deeper malaise in the system,” where enforcement of judgments has become the weakest link.

The Supreme Court recently flagged the inordinate delay in "execution petitions"—cases where a court order has been passed but not implemented. These petitions constitute nearly one-third of all civil cases in district courts, revealing a critical failure in translating judicial decrees into tangible justice. This procedural paralysis not only inflicts emotional and financial strain on citizens but also erodes the moral authority of the judiciary and deters economic investment.

The causes are systemic and multifaceted: a shortage of nearly 5,000 judges, a judge-to-population ratio of 21 per million (far below the recommended 50), complex procedures, and the government itself being the largest litigant, accounting for nearly 50% of pending cases. While initiatives like fast-track courts and virtual hearings offer some relief, they have yet to make a significant dent in the backlog. A reformed, technology-driven, and citizen-centric approach is imperative to restore faith in the system's ability to deliver timely justice.

Upholding Standards: The Exclusive World of Advocates on Record

Integral to the functioning of the apex court is the highly regulated system of Advocates on Record (AORs). As detailed in a comprehensive guide, the AOR designation, governed by Article 145 of the Constitution and Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, creates an exclusive cadre of lawyers with the sole authority to file cases in the Supreme Court. Fewer than 0.002% of India's advocates hold this title, making them the essential gatekeepers of the highest court.

The path to becoming an AOR is deliberately arduous, requiring a minimum of five years of practice (four years plus one year of dedicated training) and passing a rigorous four-part examination with an 80% failure rate. This system is designed to ensure that only advocates with deep procedural knowledge and ethical grounding practice before the Supreme Court. AORs are not merely filers; they are officers of the court, personally accountable for the accuracy of every document and the adherence to every procedural nuance. This meticulous gatekeeping aims to maintain the quality and efficiency of the apex court's proceedings, forming a crucial, if little-understood, part of the judicial architecture.

Judicial Interpretation in Personal Lives: A High Court Ruling on Cruelty

The judiciary's role extends from abstract constitutional principles to the most intimate aspects of personal life. A recent judgment from the Madhya Pradesh High Court illustrates this, granting a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty after finding that a wife had persistently and falsely accused her husband of being an alcoholic.

A Division Bench of Justices Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla observed, “a persistent resolved attitude of respondent-wife to see that her husband is ridiculed and humiliated in his social circle as an alcoholic is definitely a serious affair.” The Court overturned a family court's decision, finding that the wife's allegations of intoxication were unfounded and constituted a baseless accusation that compromised the husband's social standing. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in defining the contours of mental cruelty within marriage, where public humiliation and false allegations can be as damaging as physical harm.

A Global Threat to Judicial Independence

The principle of an independent judiciary, fiercely protected in India, faces direct threats on the international stage. In a concerning development, the New York City Bar Association has raised alarms over sanctions imposed by the United States government on Brazilian judicial officials, including Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.

Following Brazilian court decisions related to the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro for his alleged role in an attempted coup, the U.S. administration imposed visa restrictions and financial sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. The U.S. government characterized the Brazilian judicial proceedings as a “political witch hunt.” The City Bar condemned this as a direct interference that “violate[s] international standards on judicial independence” and sets a “troubling precedent, fostering international political pressure that threatens judicial independence.”

This external pressure on a sovereign nation’s judiciary for its rulings in a politically sensitive case represents a grave threat to the rule of law. It contravenes the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, which prohibits “improper influences, pressures, threats or interferences… from any quarter or for any reason.” This incident serves as a stark reminder that the fight to protect judicial autonomy is not confined by national borders.

Conclusion: The Enduring Quest for Trust

The judiciary, both in India and globally, stands at a critical juncture. Its strength is not derived from coercive power but from the trust it inspires. While courts champion foundational doctrines and expand human rights, they must concurrently address the systemic rot of inefficiency that denies justice to millions. While professional standards are upheld through rigorous systems like the AOR, the entire institution must guard against both internal decay and external political intimidation. The controversies coursing through the legal world today are not just academic debates; they are vital struggles to preserve the integrity, efficacy, and soul of the rule of law.