In any democracy, the judiciary is supposed to be the ultimate safeguard of rights, freedoms, and constitutional balance. But in India, some critics now ask a dangerous question: is the Supreme Court turning from guardian of democracy into a gatekeeper of power—one that operates without transparency and accountability?
⚖️ The Collegium: Power Without Scrutiny
At the heart of this debate lies the Collegium system—the mechanism through which judges appoint judges. Unique to India, it bypasses parliamentary oversight or public hearings.
Defenders say it preserves judicial independence. Detractors call it a self-perpetuating oligarchy, where a select few choose successors in closed rooms. This secrecy fuels suspicion of nepotism, favouritism, and, at times, outright corruption.
The result? For many citizens, the judiciary seems less like an impartial referee and more like a club that selects its own members, immune from outside accountability.
🧾 Convenient Justice?
Whispers within legal circles raise another troubling concern: the possibility that some well-connected advocates and registrars wield undue influence. Cases are “listed” or “delisted” in ways that can tilt outcomes. In a system where ordinary litigants wait years, influential players often get fast-tracked hearings and favourable rulings.
This does not mean every judgment is tainted. But the perception of convenience and selective access erodes trust—and in law, perception can be as damaging as fact.
🚨 Above the Law?
The Supreme Court often interprets the Constitution with remarkable breadth—sometimes hailed as progressive, other times branded as judicial overreach.
- It has struck down constitutional amendments, overruling the elected Parliament.
- It has questioned the authority of the President.
- It enjoys near-total immunity for its own members, as impeachment of judges is rare and politically fraught.
For critics, this suggests a dangerous imbalance: unelected judges wielding unchecked power over elected representatives.
💰 The Retirement Question
One of the most uncomfortable criticisms lies in what happens after retirement.
Anecdotally, some judges move abroad, their lifestyles far exceeding what official salaries could justify. Others join tribunals or commissions, raising doubts about whether judgments in office were influenced by the prospect of post-retirement rewards.
Whether perception or reality, the suspicion is corrosive: it suggests that those entrusted to guard the law may themselves be above it.
⚖️ Elected vs. Selected
At the heart of the unease is a democratic paradox: India is governed by leaders chosen through elections, yet many of its most consequential decisions—appointments, constitutional interpretations, even the survival of laws—lie in the hands of a small, unelected group of judges.
When the “selected” appear to override the “elected,” people naturally ask: who truly rules India?
🔮 Hypothetical Future: A Judicial Dictatorship?
If current trends continue—opaque appointments, unchecked interpretation of the Constitution, whispers of favouritism, and lifestyles that suggest privilege beyond scrutiny—the danger is real. Not of a dictatorship by generals or politicians, but a quieter one: a dictatorship of the gavel.
In this future, the Constitution becomes whatever the judges say it is. Accountability disappears into collegium secrecy. Public trust erodes until the judiciary stands isolated—powerful, yes, but no longer respected.
🌱 The Way Forward
India does not need to weaken its judiciary—it needs to strengthen transparency and accountability:
- Make collegium deliberations public.
- Institute external checks in judicial appointments.
- Enforce strong disclosure rules for judges’ assets.
- Create a culture where questioning judges is not equated with undermining democracy.
A judiciary beyond scrutiny is no friend of democracy. It is its silent assassin.
