Context

• The recent decisions by the Supreme Court, declaring the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional and affirming the victory of AAP in the mayoral race in Chandigarh, have been hailed as positive developments for electoral democracy.
• However, a closer examination reveals that while these decisions may offer a temporary hope, they do not necessarily signify a systemic regeneration.
• Amid these developments it is, therefore, important to analyse the broader context of institutional degradation, examining the challenges faced by the Court in balancing its legitimacy against the need to confront executive power.

An Analysis of the Balancing Act of the Supreme Court

• Keep a Check on Executive’s Actions Maintaining Its Own Legitimacy
  • The Supreme Court of India, as the apex judicial body, is entrusted with the responsibility of interpreting and upholding the constitution.
  • In doing so, it often finds itself in a delicate balancing act, attempting to navigate the complexities of challenging executive decisions while safeguarding its own legitimacy.
  • This intricate balancing between the judiciary and the executive is representative of the broader constitutional framework, where checks and balances are essential to prevent any one branch from overpowering the others.
• Importance of Maintaining Legitimacy
  • One crucial aspect of this balancing act is the need to avoid antagonising the executive to the point where the Court's legitimacy comes under threat.
  • The Court recognises that maintaining a delicate equilibrium is essential for the continued existence of the institution.
  • If the Court's legitimacy were to collapse, it could undermine the very foundations of the constitutional order it seeks to protect.
  • This consideration often influences the Court's decisions, prompting it to weigh its actions against the potential repercussions for its own standing.

Concerns/Challenges Surrounding the Court’s Balancing Act Against Executive

• The Dual Role Dilemma
  • The Court must navigate the complexities of its dual role - both as an arbiter of legal disputes and as a guardian of constitutional values.
  • Striking a balance between these roles becomes particularly challenging when faced with executive actions that may infringe upon constitutional principles.
  • The recent decisions, such as declaring the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional, exemplify instances where the Court asserted its role in safeguarding democratic norms while avoiding a direct confrontation that could jeopardise its legitimacy.
• Limitations: the Need to Maintain a Facade of Constitutionalism
  • This delicate balancing act has its limitations and the concern arises when the Court's reluctance to confront the executive becomes more pronounced than its commitment to upholding constitutional values.
  • The broader acceptance of the Court in the executive's ideological agendas highlights the extent to which this balancing act may have tilted in favour of caution over constitutional assertiveness.
  • The Court's role in legitimising executive decisions, even those with authoritarian undertones, is underscored by the need to maintain a facade of constitutional principles.
• Upholding Principles Amidst Executive Power
  • While the recent decisions may be considered positive steps, they raise questions about the Court's consistent commitment to challenging executive power.
  • The delicate equilibrium maintained by the Court, while crucial for its survival, must not come at the expense of robustly defending the constitutional principles it is duty-bound to uphold.
  • Striking the right balance requires a nuanced understanding of the constitutional framework, a commitment to justice, and a willingness to stand firm against potential encroachments on democratic values, even if it means challenging the executive in ways that may be uncomfortable.
  • The true measure of the Court's success in this balancing act lies not only in the decisions it makes but, in its ability, to uphold the principles of justice and democracy, even in the face of formidable executive power.

Understanding the Political Culture, Public Sentiments and Court’s Role in Shaping Political Culture

• The Divergence of Legal Decisions and Public Sentiment
  • Despite the Supreme Court's recent decisions against the government's initiatives, there is a noticeable disconnection between these legal pronouncements and public sentiment.
  • Actions such as declaring the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional or exposing electoral malpractice are not resonating as deal-breakers or signs of corruption within the ruling party.
  • This disparity raises crucial questions about the effectiveness of legal decisions in influencing public perception and shaping the political culture.
• The Normalisation of Institutional Degradation
  • The lack of public outrage and mobilisation in response to decisions challenging the government's actions suggests a troubling normalisation of institutional degradation.
  • In a functioning democracy, actions that undermine democratic values, such as electoral integrity issues, would typically trigger public concern and political repercussions.
  • However, in the current political scenario, these instances are perceived merely as tactical mistakes or minor errors, rather than significant threats to democracy or indicators of institutional untrustworthiness.
• Aestheticization of Politics
  • The videos of cases like the Chandigarh mayoral race, instead of sparking political concern, are viewed through the lens of entertainment.
  • This aestheticization of politics underscores a strange fascination with the blundering quality of the events rather than an acknowledgment of their potential implications for the ruling dispensation's commitment to holding power.
  • The Court, in this context, operates within a socio-political environment where the seriousness of issues related to electoral integrity and democratic norms is overshadowed by a more superficial engagement with political developments.
• Opposition Fragmentation and Political Leverage
  • The Opposition's inability to politically leverage decisions that challenge the government further contributes to the normalization of institutional duplicity.
  • The fragmented nature of the Opposition prevents it from capitalising on instances where the judiciary acts as a check on executive power.
  • The lack of a united front to hold the government accountable diminishes the impact of legal decisions on the broader political landscape, allowing the ruling party to deflect and downplay the significance of adverse judicial rulings.
• Courts' Role in Shaping Political Culture
  • The Court, while delivering commendable decisions in individual cases, finds itself operating in a political culture that appears impervious to the erosion of democratic norms.
  • Its role in shaping political culture is constrained by the broader context of institutional degradation, where legal victories are treated as isolated incidents rather than systemic correctives.
  • The Court's decisions, though legally sound, struggle to catalyse the kind of public mobilisation and outrage necessary to influence the prevailing political culture.

Way Forward

• Urgent Need for Civic Courage and Critical Thinking
  • In the face of institutional degradation and a lack of political mobilisation, there is a intense absence of civic courage, critical thinking, and a willingness to hold the government accountable.
  • Each breach of institutional propriety, whether related to overreach, repression, or communalization, fails to elicit a robust response from the public.
  • The reluctance to engage critically with such issues contributes to the perpetuation of a political culture where even decisions in favour of democracy are treated as rare surprises rather than expected outcomes.
  • Thus, the public's reception of these judgments becomes crucial in determining their long-term impact.
• Need for a Critical Examination of the Role of Institutions
  • Recent decisions need to be part of a larger pattern challenging the consolidation of authoritarianism and communalism.
  • The current political atmosphere demands a critical examination of the role of institutions in maintaining genuine accountability.

Conclusion

• While the recent decisions by the Supreme Court may be seen as positive steps, they should be viewed cautiously within the larger context of institutional degradation.
• The challenges of balancing legitimacy, fragmented opposition, and the normalisation of institutional degradation pose significant hurdles.
• The public's reception and the Court's consistent commitment to upholding constitutional values will determine whether these decisions signify a genuine turning point or remain mere mirages of hope in the face of broader challenges to Indian democracy.