Growing Dissatisfaction with the Judiciary is Detrimental to a Healthy Democracy

Saurabh Varshney
The success of Indian democracy rests on its four key pillars: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and the independent media. Among these, the judiciary is regarded as the guardian of the Constitution and the ultimate protector of citizens’ fundamental rights. The judiciary is not merely an institution for resolving disputes; it is a system that upholds the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and democratic values. When citizens fail to secure justice from the government, the administration, or other institutions, the judiciary remains their last resort. However, in recent years, dissatisfaction, criticism, and debate regarding the judiciary have intensified across various sections of society. Political reactions to judicial verdicts, the mounting backlog of cases, the process of judicial appointments, questions concerning transparency, and the spread of incomplete information on social media have further fueled this discourse. In this context, a crucial question arises: is the growing dissatisfaction with the judiciary undermining its dignity and credibility, or is it part of the natural process of reform within the democratic system? Such dissatisfaction was recently witnessed when a petitioner in the Supreme Court, Prabal Pratap, referred to judges as “judicial servants,” used abusive language against the Chief Justice (CJI) Surya Kant, and even tossed papers inside the courtroom. Although security personnel removed the lawyer from the courtroom, the Court declined to take punitive action against him. The presiding judge deserves praise for maintaining composure, upholding the dignity of the Supreme Court, and forgiving the individual for this act. This matter requires a detailed examination.
Key Reasons for Dissatisfaction

1. Excessive Delay in Justice
The greatest challenge facing the Indian judicial system is the delay in delivering justice. Millions of cases have remained pending for years across various courts in the country. Many civil and criminal cases drag on for decades. There is a famous saying: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” When an individual does not receive timely justice, their faith in the judiciary begins to waver.
2. Vacant judicial posts and a lack of resources
Thousands of judicial posts remain vacant for long periods in many courts across the country. Furthermore, there is a noticeable lack of modern technology, adequate judicial staff, infrastructure, and digital facilities within the courts. The combination of a rising caseload and limited resources slows down the judicial process.
3. Controversy surrounding the judicial appointment process
The Collegium system has long been a subject of debate. Proponents believe it safeguards judicial independence, while critics argue that it lacks sufficient transparency and accountability. Delays in appointments and periodic disagreements between the executive and the judiciary also create confusion and dissatisfaction among the public.
4. Controversies regarding sensitive cases
Judicial verdicts in cases of political, social, or religious significance often elicit varied reactions across different sections of society. Court rulings are frequently evaluated through political or ideological lenses rather than on legal grounds. This can create an atmosphere of undue pressure and mistrust regarding the judiciary.
5. Social media and the spread of misinformation
In the digital age, social media has become the fastest medium for information dissemination. However, incomplete information, false claims, misleading videos, and misinterpretations of judicial verdicts create public confusion. Often, conclusions are drawn based on mere excerpts without reading the full judgment. This impacts the image of the judiciary.

Does dissatisfaction affect the dignity of the judiciary?
Criticism of any institution is not unusual in a democracy. Since the judiciary is an integral part of the democratic system, citizens have the right to question its decisions and functioning. However, such criticism must be grounded in facts, constitutional values, and a sound understanding of the law. When criticism is constructive, it paves the way for improvement. Conversely, if criticism manifests as personal allegations, political propaganda, misinformation, or baseless questions regarding the integrity of judges, it undermines both the dignity of the judiciary and public trust. The power of the judiciary rests on public confidence; if citizens’ trust erodes, the very concept of the rule of law is compromised. Therefore, upholding this dignity is essential not only for the judiciary but for democracy as a whole.
Achievements of the Judiciary
Does dissent affect the dignity of the judiciary?
Criticism of any institution is not unnatural in a democracy. Since the judiciary is also a part of the democratic system, citizens have the right to question its decisions and functioning. However, such criticism must be grounded in facts, constitutional values, and a legal understanding. Constructive criticism paves the way for improvement. Conversely, if criticism manifests as personal allegations, political propaganda, misinformation, or baseless questions regarding the integrity of judges, it undermines both the dignity of the judiciary and public trust. The judiciary’s strength rests on public confidence; if citizens’ trust erodes, the concept of the rule of law is also compromised. Therefore, upholding the judiciary’s dignity is essential not just for the institution itself, but for democracy as a whole.
Achievements of the Judiciary
Amidst criticisms of the Indian judiciary, it would be inappropriate to overlook its historic contributions.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently safeguarded the basic spirit of the Constitution. Indian democracy has been strengthened by numerous landmark judgments concerning the protection of fundamental rights, environmental safety, women’s and children’s rights, freedom of expression, the right to information, and social justice. The mechanism of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has provided an effective means for the poor, marginalized, and vulnerable sections of society to access justice. On several occasions, the judiciary has maintained democratic balance by exercising constitutional checks on the arbitrary actions of the executive and the legislature.
Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, various courts played an active role in matters related to healthcare facilities, oxygen availability, the plight of migrant workers, and civil rights. This demonstrates that the judiciary is not merely an institution that interprets the law, but also a guardian of citizens’ rights.
The Need to Uphold the Judiciary’s Dignity
In a democracy, the dignity of the judiciary is not merely a matter of respect for judges; it is a question of the supremacy of the Constitution. If public trust in the courts erodes, people may seek to resolve disputes through means other than the law, potentially leading to a state of anarchy. Therefore, upholding the dignity of the judiciary is the collective responsibility of every citizen, political party, the media, and the state. While courts should certainly be subject to criticism, such criticism must be grounded in facts, constitutional propriety, and legal arguments. The growing dissatisfaction with the Indian judiciary is a serious matter, yet it should not be viewed merely as a failure of the judiciary itself; it also reflects the ongoing process of review and reform inherent to democratic institutions. Judicial independence and accountability are equally essential. On one hand, courts must become more transparent, efficient, and accessible; on the other, society, the media, and political leadership must adopt a restrained, fact-based, and responsible attitude toward the judiciary.
The strength of a democracy is ensured not merely by robust laws, but by the public’s unwavering faith in the institutions that safeguard those laws. The dignity, impartiality, and independence of the Indian judiciary constitute the soul of democracy.
Thus, the need of the hour is to advance necessary judicial reforms while maintaining a balance between criticism and respect.

Path to Reform
To address the growing dissatisfaction, several key reforms are essential:
Expedite the filling of vacant judicial posts.
Modernize judicial infrastructure.
Make extensive use of technologies such as e-courts, digital filing, and artificial intelligence.
Ensure transparency and timeliness in the appointment process.
Launch special drives for the speedy disposal of pending cases.
Promote mediation, *Lok Adalats* (People’s Courts), and alternative dispute resolution systems.
Make judicial judgments available in simple language so that the common citizen can understand them.
Encourage factual and responsible reporting of judicial matters in the media and on social media.
Promote constitutional literacy and legal awareness among citizens.

The author is a senior journalist, thinker, and a commentator on politics and law.