It is hard to not notice that India is going through a massive social change. Adultery is not a crime any more. Women are permitted to enter the Kerala temple. Gay sex is legalized. The country’s national ID program known as Aadhaar was pruned back to take privacy concerns into consideration. India’s Supreme Court has taken responsibility to deal with issues that politicians have failed to (or denied to, to be precise) address for more than decades. The court has become an essential institution for the impressive yet disorganized democracy India has. Why does this happen in India? What is the difference that makes such a Supreme Court? Is it a positive difference?
CAPACITY
Unlike other Supreme Courts, the panels of the Indian Supreme Court are open to listening to multiple cases a day. For instance, unlike the U.S. Supreme Courts that hear around 70 cases a year, the Indian Supreme Court carry out up to 700 hearings a day. The Supreme Court is currently constituted of 31 judges that tackle cases in panels of two or more, often called a division bench. When the need arises, they discuss the decision together in large benches referred to as a constitution bench. This extensive capacity lets the court function fully as the highest court as well as a decider of controversial matters. It is imperative that the Supreme Court works in such a versatile way due to India’s highly federal political structure. The sheer size of the country forces decisions to blur the lines of morality between the central government, 29 states, and seven union territories. By instituting effective measures to divide workload between the judges, India successfully can tackle multiple cases at once but also retain the weight of Supreme Court judgments.
ACTIVITY
The Indian Supreme Court takes a very proactive role to institute top-down change. This is a very unique case, especially considering that in many developing nations the top court is often not independent and distances itself from enacting substantial changes to its society. To protect democratic values formed during their struggle against British colonialism, the Constitution protects equal pay for men and women, warns against partial distribution of wealth, and guarantees democratic rights for all people. The Indian Supreme Court takes their responsibility as protectors of this Constitution a step further. They often set up in-depth investigations and special panels to monitor and guide the process of actually realizing changes that were pursued by themselves. A good example is where the Supreme Court forced mandatory compressed gas usage on buses, taxis, and motorized rickshaws in the capital. Although Delhi’s air pollution still remains a problem, the court’s mandates did help the situation. Considering how India’s executive branch is reluctant from addressing issues of environmental harm or gender inequality through strategic systems, the Supreme Court is complementing the government in a very important role.
SPECIALIZATION AND ADAPTATION
Due to the plurality of judges on the Supreme Court bench, judges are often capable of creating specialties for themselves. For instance, Judge Madan Lokur actively tackles wildlife litigations. Such approaches and specialization would often lead to a detailed approach by the Supreme Court. Unlike other states where judges are forced to make a blanket decision on a wide array of topics, India allows more room for judges to make better decisions based on experience and expertise.
Furthermore, the process of selecting Supreme Court justices also acts as a good way to let the institution adapt and reform to the swift changes of demand in the status quo. The recent Senate hearing on Facebook’s misconduct with consumer information (although it isn’t the best example considering that this was a hearing by members of the executive branch) is a simple example of how the lack of understanding by important judicial and political leaders can lead to many loopholes being left open. When new forms of crime stem from new mediums like the Internet, it is imperative that people in power get a good grasp of those concepts to tackle them effectively. India’s Supreme Court Justices have a retirement age of 65, allowing for a swifter adaptation to a versatile society that we must face.
Another unique system is where Indian Supreme Court justices are selected by other judges. Although opinions on this system may vary, it nonetheless fulfills the role of removing the judiciary from the executive branch. Notice how in the United States cases are rarely decided upon let alone heard due to the immense partisanship that pervades through the “independent” judiciary. Recent hearings on U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh can also be an example, as senators voted based on their party, rather than the actual contents of the hearing (let’s face it; all Republicans voted for, all Democrats voted against).
Of course, India’s system is very far from perfect. Supreme Court justices are not representative across areas like caste, social status, religion, gender, and many more. Serious allegations of corruption, embezzlement, and secrecy exist. However, we must notice the effective top-down change that India’s Supreme Court displayed. In countries where the highest level of court is full with partisanship, non-adaptive to current issues, and disengaged in the decision-making process, we must consider the benefits of a system that allows for more direct change implemented by the judicial branch.
YUCHAN KIM
