This article has been written by Atif Sheikh, a second-year student at Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur.
Views are personal of the author, there shall be no responsibility of “LegalOnus“
Abstract:
The article “Erosion of Neutrality: “How does judicial bias threaten democratic legitimacy?” in fact explores the complete aspect of judicial impartiality in the issue of democracy within the recent comments made by sitting Judge of the Allahabad High Court, namely Shekhar Yadav.
Justice Yadav’s statements that imply that governance should be constitutional and follow the majority’s desire and The demand for the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code[1] (UCC) it raises serious issues related to judicial prejudice and consequence to the rights of the minorities. The judiciary is usually regarded as a prime defender of constitutionalism with the overwhelming responsibility of defending the rights of all the people without discrimination. But the article insists that such comments erode the confidence of the people in the judiciary and compromises it’s neutrality which is crucial in a democratic country.
The paper underlines the point that any signs of bias on the side of judges and judiciary would result in the decrease of the delegation of power by the people since it is deemed that bias would prompt division and erode faith in the law. This Article also speaks about other problems which also contribute to the questionability of judicial independence among them being selective activism within the judiciary and delays on politically sensitive cases. It calls for changes in the judicial system aiming to strengthen the principles of impartiality of judicial institutions, effective regulation of the procedure of selecting and appointing judges, effective code of ethic for the judges, and mechanisms for enforcing the principles of the impartiality. Yet, what fuels a critical debate on the neutrality of Indian judiciary is the recent crass comments by Justice Shekhar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court suggesting that governance is in consonance with majoritarian approach and the forecast of a UCC. Made at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) event These comments reflect the increasing disquiet regarding increase of political bias in judiciary.
As such, this article analyses statements of this sort for their effects on public trust, minority communities and the negativity that emanates with threats made on the judiciary. This paper also postulates that the principle of neutrality of judges is all the more important in a diverse, multicultural democracy such as India. Judicial sovereignty secures constitutionalism just as it safeguard citizens’ rights regardless of the view of the majority.
Based on India constitution and some previous cases like Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India (1993)[2] this paper elaborates on the need of an independent judicial system that is free from any political or any sort of ideological bias. They argue about the need to ensure that strengthening of judicial bias free systems is strengthened by proposing to outline continued support and improvement of the judicial legitimacy to the current, and democratic, social cohesion.
This, I consider as an appeal to reawakening of the basic principles of judiciary, particularly independence and impartiality for the sake of constitutionalism, democracy and citizens’ trust. To achieve this important role of defending the society’s rights, the judiciary cannot be seen to be taking sides.
Keywords:
- Judicial Neutrality
- Judicial Bias
- Democratic Legitimacy
- Justice Shekhar Yadav
- Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
- Minority Rights
- Constitutionalism
- Impartial Judiciary
- Judicial Independence
- Political Influence
- Majoritarianism
- Legal System Integrity
- Public Trust in Judiciary
- Selective Activism
- Accountability Mechanisms
- Transparency in Appointments
- Multicultural Democracy
- Rule of Law
- Social Justice
- Constitutional Protections
These keywords capture the core themes and issues discussed in the research paper, making them useful for indexing and search purposes.
Introduction
Judicial power has traditionally been considered as the Watchdog and bulwark of constitutionalism and legislator against the excesses of the executive and legislative powers. Though, the recent comment by Justice Shekhar Yadav a sitting judge of the Allahabad HC [High Court] at a Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), became the topic of controversy regarding the dwindling standard of judiciary’s neutrality. Justice Yadav said, “This country will work the way the majority wants it” and added, “That a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) will be implemented soon”[3]. Made in a context that is associated with a specific kind of political orientation, that kind of comments indeed evokes questions about bias of judiciary power, minority exclusion, and decline of the belief in democracy[4].
The controversies of these matters are scrutinized by this journal and placed in the perspective of anxieties over judicial independence and impartiality as well as the requirement of an impartial judiciary in a multicultural democracy. The reaction given by Justice Yadav on the implications of the Uniform Civil Code[5], his ideological affiliations and other acts of controversy, are intended in this piece to underscore the need of a judiciary which remains inherently impartial in dispensating justice and maintaining unity in a country of diverse culture.
Finally, the analysis restates the importance of strengthening the decor of judicial independence if India’s constitutional form of leadership and democracy is to be sustainable. This article provides a critical view of the effects of such statements, a general view of the effects to the public on the judiciary arm of government, and a call for a strengthening of neutrality of the judiciary.
Background and Context
Judiciary as the Pillar of Democracy
The Indian judiciary as envisaged by the Constitution is expected to preserve the rights of all its citizens irrespective of race, caste, sex, or religion, culture or politics. Its function is to uphold the Constitution, act as a check on majoritarian impulses, and provide a fair platform for redressal of grievances. To the people and to the legal system, Judicial neutrality is the anchor of its legitimacy. Judges are sworn to rule on the cases before them in a neutral manner without any influence from person or groups of their choosing. This expectation provides the rationale for people’s confidence in the judicial system. Nevertheless, current trends in India and other controversies have given rise to the debate over the degradation of neutrality in judiciary, which is highly critical for justice system as well as for political system..
The Recent Controversy
“I have no hesitation in saying that this is Hindustan, this country would function as per the wishes of the bahusankhyak living in Hindustan. This is the Law. You can’t say that you are saying this being a High Court Judge. The law, in fact, works according to the majority. Look at it in the context of family or society…Only what benefits the welfare and happiness of the majority will be accepted”[6]..he said.
Justice Shekhar Yadav’s comment comes at the backdrop of time when debates over the UCC is already triggering a huge divide. This is especially because the remarks associated governance with “wishes of the majority,”[7] which is precisely the opposite of what a judiciary is supposed to stand for – the advocate for Minorities.
Other Controversy
Communal Remarks: For example, he recently used words such as “kathmullah” which is a discriminating term for Muslims and other discriminating statements which made various groups of people angry, and they demanded he be punished[8].
Praise for Prime Minister Modi: Justice Yadav has also come under criticism for openly displaying an affection for Prime Minister Narendra Modi at judicial or public functions hence a question arises regarding impartiality[9].
Misleading Scientific Claims: His statement “cows exhale oxygen” has been considered ridiculous scientifically, intellectual and scientists have attacked him for popularizing falsehoods.
Discordance associated with Justice Shekhar Yadav regarding partiality and constitutionalism have created many questions in the larger Indian society. His words indicating governance by the polls is in a clear violation of the powers invested in the judiciary to guard the rights of a minority. Likewise, participation in communal comments, constant praises for the political personalities, and general promotion of the unscientific theories lower the reliability of his judgments and puts into question their impartiality. Such measures have resulted in controversy eliciting doubt over the previous decisions’ execution, whether by comprehension of the law or the facts of a case, or by political beliefs and preferences. This scrutiny is very damaging to the basic trust that is needed in a judiciary to ensure law and order.
Core Analysis
Neutrality of law courts is critical to any legal system, more so in the Indian democracy, which embraces multiculturalism; impartiality as a principle liberates injustice and fosters unity. Recent remarks by Justice Shekhar Yadav, suggesting governance align with majority wishes and predicting the inevitability of the Uniform Civil Code, have raised concerns about bias and the marginalization of minorities. They are likely to undermine confidence in the Judiciary, fostering polarization and undermining constitutional governance. It is therefore important to maintain an independent judiciaries in order to protect rights of every human being.
Signs of Erosion in India:
- The judiciary in India has faced increasing criticism over perceived lapses in neutrality. Some key concerns include:
- Delays in Critical Verdicts: The delay in delivering judgments on politically sensitive cases has sometimes been interpreted as judicial evasion or reluctance to challenge powerful entities. In politically sensitive cases, delays are usually followed by judicial evasion just as it was exemplified by activist Umar Khalid, 36 year old man was arrested under the UAPA[10] for the 2020 Delhi riots, and he has been in prison for over four years now without trial, although he has denied the charges saying he only participated in riots in a peaceful manner. Apprehensively, successive bail applications have been declined affirming strict measures of the UAPA even though, the legal team continues making there strong case of weak evidence and doubtful witness deposition. His long stay in prison is considered by critics as marking their failure to challenge political narratives and ultimately challenge state’s action.
- Selective Activism: While judicial activism has been a hallmark of Indian jurisprudence, its selective application has sparked debates. Critics argue that the judiciary sometimes oversteps its mandate in certain cases while remaining passive in others of equal or greater significance.
- Perceived Alignments: Accusations of judicial decisions favoring specific political ideologies or parties have fueled skepticism about the judiciary’s independence.
Consequently, it will be possible to identify the implications of the eroded neutrality that acts as a framework for the governance of the state.
A judiciary perceived as biased has far-reaching consequences:
- Weakening Constitutionalism: When the judiciary operates in a way not as an independent branch able to counterbalance the other organs of state power a constitutional system of checks and balances is weakened.
- Loss of Public Trust: Everyone wants a court trial to be fair, and the public’s confidence in fair trials cannot be overemphasized in any society. A biased judiciary puts the people off.
- Threats to Justice Delivery: Cohesion of neutrality may lead breach in the laid down laws hence facilitating passage of judgments that augur social inequality.
This Article argues that there is need for judicial impartiality as the foundation of a fair legal system especially for a pluralistic India’s democratic society. Some of the recent observations made by Justice Shekhar Yadav regarding the desirability of making governance majoritarian and his precognitive remarks about the imminent implementation of the Uniform Civil Code have given raise to two questions of constitutional morality based on bias and minorities’ rights. I consider political statements of this sort as a threat to judicial authority, creating the atmosphere of extreme conflict, and destabilizing constitutionalism. And independent judiciary is a key approach to the protection of rights and ensuring justice for all citizens.
Solving these issues requires structural changes and impressive appeals to judiciary system’s independency. Some steps include:
- Transparent Appointments: Political control over judicial appoints should be given a minimal chance, focusing on merit and not politicization.
- Code of Conduct: Prescription of standards of conduct with regard to judges, especially with regard to remarks that the presiding judges make requires formulation to uphold the dignity of the judiciary.
- Accountability Mechanisms: Important steps in eliminating bias include how to establish strong and quality accountability framework with out undermining the issue of independence of the judiciary.
Democratic responsibility of the judiciary requires its impartiality and independence. Situations that may trigger controversy as to the impartiality of an official, a worker, a teacher – including the utterance of outrageous statements, or alleged biases – require tactful response for the credibility of the institution to be maintained. An independent judiciary is not a constitutional principle but a realistic need of justice, fairness, and protection of democracy.
Conclusion
This speech can be easily rebutted, but it would be irresponsible not to remind Justice Shekhar Yadav, that the ‘Constitution of India requires the judiciary to be independent and unbiased’ which is a core principle of preamble And which was Highlighted by the Landmark Case Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (1993)[11]: Indeed, impartiality, independence, fairness and reasonableness in decision making are some of the principles of the judiciary. The perception of the judiciary as an independent and impartial branch has gained more importance in the nations with the written constitution, where the executive has been vested with broad power to prime the government and the propensity for misuse of such rights is relatively high.
As judiciary is considered as the watchdog of democracy especially in a country like India it becomes imperative that the judges in their individual capacity and the judiciary in its entirety is as independent and free from any interior and exterior politics. Ideally in a republican setup which is fully based on the Constitution and Rule of law, an Independent Judiciary is a necessity. His statements advocating majoritarian governance and predicting the inevitability of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) challenge the judiciary’s duty to protect minority rights and foster equality in a pluralistic society. The relevance of cases like, Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1985)[12], demonstrated that personal laws cannot be uniformly overridden by a UCC without respecting the pluralistic ethos of the Constitution. Besides, an impartial and independent choice mechanism is a sure way of avoiding a situation whereby individuals with questionable character occupy strategic judicial positions; thereby, the public have faith and self assurance in the justice delivery mechanism of the country. Thus, evaluating of Justice Shekhar Yadav’s comments, it is possible to conclude, that the Indian judiciary has already faced those treats, which in the European Union are seen as signs of severe derogation of judicial impartiality.
His comments on the main stream culture of governance as well as some past issues can be said to have some bias towards the judiciary. For instance, the case of Umar Khalid, one of the activists imprisoned for a long time without trial on politically sensitive charges has been criticized and the perception of selective justice and Judicial apathy in confronting state actions is growing.
The places weaken the public confidence In judiciary and causes doubts on the independence of judiciary as constitutional protector of rights. Thus, credentials need to be regained, and it is possible to give justice by performing the amendments that would protect the independence of the judicial system. Integrity in the process of selecting judges, a higher ethical standard for judiciary and independence and internal and external watchdogs are the important measures to regain confidence in the judiciary.
Thus there, the role of Indian judiciary is not only that of a Constitutional Court, but also as a minister for the protection of minority rights against majoritarianism. To do this isn’t just the constitutional function of a judge, but also a moral obligation to prevent bias which threatens justice, disrupt social order, or dissolve democracy. If these concerns are not addressed, the collapse of any of the avenues outlined above threatens to bring the judiciary – and judicial legitimacy – into disrepute as well as the constitutional basis for governance.
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1406604/
[2] AIR SUPREME COURT 268, 1993 (4) SCC 441, 1993 AIR SCW 4101, (1993) 5 JT 479 (SC), (1993) 5 SERVLR 337 1994
[3] New Indian Express. (2024). Country will run as per wishes of majority, says Allahabad HC judge at VHP event. Retrieved from https://www.newindianexpress.com
[4] Scroll. (2024). At VHP event, Allahabad HC judge says India will run as per wishes of majority. Retrieved from https://scroll.in
[5] “Article 44 in the Constitution of India 1949”. Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 22 August 2020
[6] BOOM Live. (2024). India will run by wishes of the majority: Allahabad HC judge sparks outrage. Retrieved from https://boomlive.in
[7] Legal Wires. (2024). Justice Yadav’s controversial remarks at VHP event. Retrieved from https://legal-wires.com
[8] Scroll. (2024). At VHP event, Allahabad HC judge says India will run as per wishes of majority. Retrieved from https://scroll.in
[9] Legal Wires. (2024). Justice Yadav’s controversial remarks at VHP event. Retrieved from https://legal-wires.com
[10]“UAPA, 1967 at NIA.gov.in”(PDF). NIA. Retrieved 28 December 2012
[11] AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 268, 1993 (4) SCC 441, 1993 AIR SCW 4101, (1993) 5 JT 479 (SC), (1993) 5 SERVLR 337
[12] 1985 AIR 945, 1985 SCR (3) 844, AIR 1985 SC 945, 1985 (2) SCC 556, 1985 SCALE (1) 767, (1985) SC CR R 294, 1985 (87) BOM LR 435.
