Vox populi, vox Dei, meaning the voice of the people is the voice of God, is a Latin phrase that tells us that the real power lies with the people in a constitutional democracy where the rule of law prevails. Today, we are witnessing a tug-of-war between the three pillars of democracy – the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary to establish supremacy over each other. Opinions are flying left, right, everywhere and the people of India are confused. Thanks to the technology that one can browse the internet for basic information and arrive at an informed opinion on their own. This article is a perception of a common man that is based on simple observations of the happenings in the country and a deeper look into the root cause of the problem. India, with its vast cultural, linguistic, religious, and regional differences, exists as a unique pluralist society under one nation that is Bharat, and Vox populi translates to the voice of the majority Bharat population.
Three immediate incidents of judiciary actions that provided the trigger to this war of supremacy are: i) Wakf Amendment Act 2025 hearing in Supreme Court, ii) alleged coverup of corruption in burnt Indian currency case of Justice Varma, and iii) setting deadline for Presidential decision on reserved bills by Supreme court division bench.
- i) Wakf Amendment Act 2025 is the result of Vox populi that became louder in the last decade to readdress the injustice done to the majority Hindu population by vote bank politics of Muslim appeasement that started in the Nehruvian era. Despite voices of resistance from within the ruling Congress party, Hindu code bills were introduced to reform and modernise Hindu personal laws that replaced several religious laws by a common law code addressing issues like inheritance, marriage and guardianship. While the Hindu code bills applied to various sects among Indian religions like Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs, it exempted Muslims, Christians, Jews and Parsis. The stage was set against the majority voice, and the judiciary was a silent spectator.
The second deception was unleashed on majority population when the Mussalman Wakf-Validating Act, 1913 continued in its new avatar, the Waqf Act, 1954 and later through Waqf Act, 1995 and the amendment in 2013 that gave sweeping powers to Wakf board to lay claims over unprecedented scale to acquire property by the force of law. The judiciary remained silent. The foundation of Muslim appeasement politics that was laid by Nehru to develop a substantial loyal vote bank was later fine-tuned by successive Congress governments. The example of overturning Shah Bano’s case by Rajiv Gandhi’s government is an example of appeasing the hardliners. The list is very long and would fill several pages. Such acts that were against the interests of the majority population had been simmering over the last seven decades in a never-ending ecosystem of communal strife that plagued the country since then. So, when the government brought the Wakf Amendment Act, certain elements of the Indian society went to the Supreme Court directly for a judicial review. The problem came when the court not only agreed to a review but also indicated to pass an interim order, which it wisely refrained from and postponed the decision. This was seen as a double standard of the Supreme Court as earlier such cases were directed to lower courts at the first instance.
- ii) A video showing burnt cash in a storeroom at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, a Delhi High Court Judge, shocked the nation. From the visuals, it looked that the amount may have easily exceeded a few tens of crores. People in the country were baffled by the lukewarm response of the Chief Justice of India who merely transferred the judge to his parent Allahabad High Court and initiated an in-house enquiry after a week of the incident. People saw this as a friendly pat on his colleague’s shoulders and an attempt to cover the tracks of alleged corruption. In such cases, lodging an FIR would have been the first action in case of a normal person. But to complain about a judge, one needs permission of the Supreme Court. The Bar Association of the Allahabad High Court responded to CJI’s action by conveying to him that it is not a dumping ground for corrupt and tainted judges. This action of the Supreme Court created doubts in the minds of the people about the honesty of the judiciary and the fair practices of justice that the apex court is known for. People in the country are slowly losing faith in the judiciary, which is already tainted by allegations of nepotism due to the opaque collegium system of appointments of judges.
iii) The overreach of a division bench to set a 3-month deadline for the President of India to decide on bills precipitated matters for the worse and led to a full-blown verbal fight between the government and the judiciary. The response from the executive was swift when the Vice President reminded the Supreme Court in a scathing attack about the supremacy of the President of India as the supreme authority in such matters. Some of the members of the Lok Sabha also joined in a verbal spat, though the choice of some of the words could have been better. Without going into the intricacies and merits of different articles of the constitution under which such a decision was taken by the division bench, the people’s perception in this case is overwhelmingly against the Supreme Court. People are surprised that can a Supreme Court judge can dictate to the President of India who appoints them in the first place. People are asking why there can’t be a time limit for judges to deliver quick judgments instead of frequent adjournments that has become a rule rather than an exception. While lakhs of undertrials languish in inhuman conditions in jails, the Supreme Court does not forego its annual summer and winter vacations for weeks.
The combination of these three incidents led to the war of supremacy that brought past actions of the Supreme Court judges into focus. People feel that the judiciary conveniently went along with the decisions of the government of the day earlier, without confronting them on several draconian Amendments like the Wakf Act 1995 or even the emergency, to name a few, and kept a low profile during the last seven decades for reasons best known to them. They have suddenly become very active in the last decade, creating doubts about their intentions. The culture of suo moto has become a weapon to embarrass the government and is taken selectively. People are witness to how influential people can get bail at any hour of the late evening or during a holiday, whereas a normal person has to go to jail for trivial offences. It is high time that the judiciary realises that the present government is trying to correct the misdeeds and injustice of the earlier governments and address the issues that have negatively impacted the very fabric of Indian society. This is also the voice of the people who have given the mandate to do this. This is in the national as well as societal interest.
Since, the democracies are run by people where bias is embedded in every individual’s genetic code, the wise people who drafted the Indian constitution gave the Doctrine of separation of powers binding the three pillars of democracy. This was done to prevent the concentration of power and provide checks and balances. For the growth of our country and peace and harmony in the society, the legislature, executive and judiciary must work in their spheres without overstepping in each other’s arena of work. This is what is envisioned in our constitution.