The Judiciary at a Crossroads: A Candid Assessment of India's Democratic Health

It was a stark, sobering warning that echoed through the legal community recently, as Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave didn't mince words about the state of India's democracy and, crucially, the role its judiciary plays. Speaking at a seminar in Ahmedabad, an event jointly organized by the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association and the Bar Association of India, Dave laid bare his profound concerns, stating unequivocally that if judges aren't prepared to stand firm during these often-turbulent times, then frankly, our democracy isn't safe at all. It's quite something to hear such a direct assessment from a figure of his stature, isn't it?

He didn't stop there. For Dave, the problem runs deeper, describing the current period as perhaps the judiciary's "darkest hour" since the tumultuous Emergency era. That's a pretty strong statement, indicating a crisis of confidence in the very institution meant to be the protector of our rights and freedoms. He pointed a critical finger at the collegium system, the mechanism by which judges are appointed, labeling it a "total failure" and, perhaps even more controversially, a "big scam." This isn't just about inefficiency; it's about a fundamental lack of transparency and, crucially, accountability that he believes has crippled the system.

You see, Dave argues that this opaque appointment process has led to a situation where judges, rather than upholding their constitutional mandate, sometimes act as if they are, in his words, "ruling the country." Yet, at the same time, there's a troubling paradox: a perceived subservience to the executive branch. He expressed deep disappointment, suggesting that the judiciary, our ultimate recourse, appears to be "in the pocket" of the government, leading to what he described as a "controlled democracy." It's a disheartening picture, to say the least, when the very pillar designed to check power seems to be bending to it.

He fondly recalled a different time, contrasting the present with the era of figures like Justice P.N. Bhagwati, when, it seemed, judicial independence felt more robust. The absence of truly "bold judges" – the kind who stood up against executive overreach, like Justice H.R. Khanna during the Emergency – is a significant point of concern for him. These aren't just nostalgic recollections; they are poignant reminders of what a fearless judiciary looks like and, perhaps, what we've lost. One can't help but wonder what such stalwarts would make of today's landscape.

Beyond the appointments, Dave also touched upon the unsettling frequency of transfers of High Court Chief Justices, implying that such moves might be politically motivated rather than purely administrative. It adds another layer to his argument that the judiciary is, tragically, losing its crucial independence. Ultimately, his message is a passionate plea for a judiciary that genuinely reflects the best of society, selected through a transparent process, and above all, brave enough to defend the Constitution and its citizens, because when all is said and done, the judiciary truly is our last, best hope.