The Supreme Court’s recent decision to issue notices to the Union Government and investigative agencies on the progress of major bank-fraud cases is, in itself, a welcome move. Public money deserves the highest protection, and court-monitored probes ensure accountability. The bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai has responded swiftly to a petition filed by activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan and a former bureaucrat. Fair enough. Nobody disputes the seriousness of bank fraud. But the larger question cannot be brushed aside: Why does the same Supreme Court that shows remarkable urgency in entertaining some petitions appear strikingly indifferent to others—especially those touching upon the concerns, faith, and constitutional rights of the majority community? Why does judicial activism seem to follow patterns, and why does judicial restraint appear selective? For years now, petitions seeking freedom for Hindu temples from state-controlled endowments departments have languished. These are not fringe demands—they concern the fundamental right of devotees to manage their own religious institutions, something freely enjoyed by other communities. Multiple high-level committees and former judges have flagged how temple revenues are diverted to purposes unrelated to the faith of the devotees. Yet these petitions rarely receive the kind of urgency reserved for issues championed by a predictable set of “public-interest crusaders.” Likewise, the Supreme Court has not deemed it necessary to take suo motu cognisance of repeated, reckless political attacks on Constitutional bodies such as the Election Commission of India. From National Conference’s Farooq Abdullah to PDP’s Mehbooba Mufti and even senior Opposition figures like Rahul Gandhi, the pattern has been consistent—allegations that question the integrity of national institutions without a shred of evidence. In any mature democracy, attempts to erode public faith in constitutional bodies are treated as serious threats. But for reasons best known to itself, the judiciary rarely shows the same zeal when such issues are brought before it.
Contrast this with the attentiveness shown to petitions from familiar activist circles. It is not forgotten that senior lawyer Kapil Sibal openly argued for postponing the Ayodhya verdict ahead of the 2019 elections—an astonishing attempt to influence judicial timelines for political advantage. Yet the court entertained him with patience and courtesy. Where is that same sensitivity when issues concerning Hindu rights, temple autonomy, or attacks on constitutional bodies come up? This is why many ordinary citizens now believe that the judiciary must introspect seriously. The credibility of the court, like the Constitution it protects, rests on the principle of fairness—not perceived selectivity. To be clear, bank frauds are indeed a burning national issue. But even here, the facts must be placed accurately. The large NPAs and frauds that shocked the country in the mid-2010s did not erupt overnight. They were the consequence of years of lax oversight, politically-directed lending, and systemic capture during the UPA era. It was only after 2014 that the RBI, Government, and investigative agencies launched coordinated, multi-year corrective actions: the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, mandatory AQRs, stricter provisioning norms, and the cleanup of bad loans. This is what enabled banks to return to profit after years of bleeding. It is also this government— not its predecessors— that pursued fugitives like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Mehul Choksi through extradition proceedings, INTERPOL mechanisms, and asset-seizure laws. The same approach is visible in ongoing actions against corporate defaulters; the Enforcement Directorate and CBI have repeatedly questioned Anil Ambani, attached assets of his group companies, and widened their investigations. His arrest, according to legal observers, is no longer improbable. So yes—courts monitoring progress on such cases is welcome. But why cannot the same seriousness extend to issues involving majority rights, religious autonomy, and national institutions? Why should the judiciary appear prompt when certain activists file petitions but almost dismissive when ordinary Hindus knock on its doors? The time has come for the apex court to re-examine its priorities, dispose of long-pending cases, and admit matters strictly based on national interest and constitutional balance—not ideological comfort. Justice must not only be done. It must be seen to be done—by every citizen, equally.
