There was a time when the Indian judiciary was held in awe—an institution that struck down excesses of the executive, defended the rights of citizens, and embodied the conscience of the nation. Today, that reverence is in steep and dangerous decline. And it’s not merely an angry whisper on the street—it’s a roaring discontent felt across army cantonments, police barracks, border outposts, and countless middle-class homes. The judiciary, once the last hope, is now being increasingly seen as the weakest link in India’s internal security and justice delivery system.
Recent verdicts by both the Supreme Court and various High Courts have left the public aghast, especially those in uniform who risk their lives daily to safeguard this nation. How else can one explain the Bombay High Court’s order acquitting key convicts in the horrific 7/11 Mumbai train bombings on technical grounds, and the Supreme Court’s reluctant stay order that looked more like a rubber stamp than a resolute act of judicial review?
The 7/11 blasts in 2006 killed 189 innocent civilians and injured over 800 in a series of well-coordinated explosions across Mumbai’s suburban railway network. After years of investigation, conviction, and due legal process, the High Court decided that the evidence wasn’t good enough, that technicalities were stronger than the blood spilled on the tracks. And when the Maharashtra government went to the Supreme Court to seek a stay, its own Solicitor General Tushar Mehta shamefully informed the bench that the state wasn’t seeking the re-arrest of the freed convicts. What was that legal theatre about, then?
For a government that globally parades its “zero tolerance for terrorism” stance under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, this act reeks of political doublespeak. The Centre may beat its chest on the world stage about counter-terrorism, but inside courtrooms, it mumbles, apologizes, and looks the other way when justice slips through its fingers. Who is playing whom?
Selective Empathy and Judicial Hypocrisy
This isn’t an isolated instance. Over the past few years, we’ve seen a bizarre judicial activism—selective, misplaced, and tragically tone-deaf. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made observations questioning the actions of the armed forces in disturbed areas like Jammu & Kashmir and Manipur, almost criminalizing their very act of defending the nation.
Take the case of Gunner Rishi Kumar, a brave soldier who neutralized terrorists despite suffering head injuries. Instead of accolades, what awaited him? An FIR. A police probe. A future of judicial harassment. He will now be summoned for questioning, forced to justify his split-second life-saving decisions before courts, and perhaps even jailed for “excessive use of force.” One wonders—should he have offered flowers to the jihadists first?
These soldiers are not sociopaths; they are state-sanctioned defenders of the republic. And yet, courts treat them as trigger-happy rogues. Judicial scrutiny of active military operations—without any military background, strategic context, or accountability for consequences—is not just inappropriate. It is insane.
As one army veteran famously said: “The Supreme Court has given us two options—get killed and be called a martyr, or kill the terrorist and be called a murderer.”
Media, Veterans, and the Awakening of Public Rage
Thanks to a handful of media warriors like Arnab Goswami and platforms that haven’t yet sold out to Lutyens’ appeasement cartel, public anger is finally being voiced. Soldiers, police officers, and even civilians have begun to speak out. Col. A.N. Roy’s viral message hits hard and deep. He bluntly says, “Terrorists are born to be killed. They don’t deserve any rights—forget human rights.”
Do courts understand this reality? When was the last time a judge lost a son to a terrorist bullet or a daughter in uniform to an IED blast? When did they attend a military funeral or visit a PTSD-ridden jawan fighting insomnia, guilt, and bureaucracy?
Justice must be blind, yes. But must it also be blind to common sense?
While soldiers are prosecuted, actual criminals—politicians, mafias, and yes, terrorists—walk free with bail from the apex court. We have seen hate-mongers, communal inciters, and corrupt ministers granted bail in record time. Case in point: a recent apex court verdict where a politician accused of inciting communal violence was allowed to walk on the grounds of “freedom of speech.” But a common citizen accused of a minor financial default languishes for years behind bars without a hearing.
More damning is the court’s propensity to indulge hardened criminals with “compassionate bail.” Recently, even a 2008 Batla House terror accused got parole—yes, parole—on religious grounds! Meanwhile, Hindu festival organizers face FIRs for playing bhajans over loudspeakers. Welcome to modern India’s justice circus.
This is not a call for mob justice. It is a call for judicial realism. For grounding lofty constitutional sermons in the dirt, sweat, and blood of the real India. For acknowledging that no freedom is absolute, and that national security must outweigh the rights of those who seek to destroy the nation.
The judiciary’s disconnect from ground realities is no longer a joke. It is a threat to the Republic. If courts continue to offer legal sanctuaries to the enemies of the state, while persecuting those who defend it, the day is not far when people will stop knocking at the door of justice—and begin breaking it down.
And when that happens, dear judges, don’t ask what went wrong. Ask what took so long.
