11

Feb

Judiciary, Democratic Institutions Working Under Pressure, Says Former CJ

image

Naushad Khan

 

New Delhi | Wednesday | 11 February 2026

India’s democratic framework and constitutional institutions are facing one of their most testing phases, according to former Chairman of the Punjab Human Rights Commission, Mr Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, who is a former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. Drawing from decades of judicial experience, Justice Ansari has raised serious concerns about electoral integrity, judicial independence, executive pressure, and the erosion of constitutional values.

The recent appearance of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee before the Supreme Court to challenge the Election Commission of India (ECI) over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls marked an extraordinary moment in India’s constitutional history. According to Justice Ansari, it is deeply unsettling that the head of an elected state government felt compelled to personally approach the country’s highest court to safeguard the voting rights of citizens.

The Supreme Court had initially indicated that it would ensure the ECI did not deny anyone their constitutional right to vote. However, events on the ground—particularly in Bihar—painted a troubling picture. Many voters were reportedly removed from electoral rolls, while allegations surfaced that money was distributed even after the election process had begun.

 

Article at a Glance
Former Patna High Court Chief Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari has cautioned that India’s democratic institutions are operating under significant strain. He highlighted concerns over electoral integrity, judicial independence, and increasing executive influence.
Referring to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s move to approach the Supreme Court over alleged voter roll irregularities, Ansari questioned both the Election Commission’s handling of voter deletions and the judiciary’s limited response. He warned that judicial remarks casting doubt on petitioners’ motives could weaken public trust and neutrality.
Pointing to controversial judicial transfers and delayed appointments, he suggested growing executive pressure on the judiciary. Ansari also criticised inadequate action against hate speech, “bulldozer justice,” and constitutional violations. Clarifying misconceptions about the Shah Bano case, he urged citizens to distinguish legal realities from political narratives and reflect seriously on the state of India’s democracy.

Despite these developments, neither the Election Commission nor the Supreme Court intervened decisively. The justification that welfare schemes had been announced earlier, Justice Ansari argued, cannot excuse the use of state resources to influence voters, especially when citizens are simultaneously being deprived of their fundamental right to vote.

Justice Ansari also expressed deep concern over certain observations made by the Chief Justice of India in recent cases. While he did not object to procedural decisions—such as directing election-related petitions from the Supreme Court to High Courts—he found remarks questioning the petitioner’s motives deeply problematic.

Suggesting that a litigant had approached the Supreme Court merely because they had lost an election or were seeking publicity, Justice Ansari warned, risks undermining judicial neutrality. Citizens have an unquestionable right to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32, and casting aspersions on their intent creates the impression that the Court has already made up its mind before hearing the case.

According to Justice Ansari, concerns about judicial independence are not speculative—they emerge from the judiciary’s own functioning. He cited the abrupt transfer of a Delhi High Court judge who had been handling sensitive riot-related cases and had sought police action against certain political leaders. Such transfers, he noted, cannot occur without the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium.

He also referred to the case of Justice Qureshi, who was recommended for appointment as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court but was blocked by the Central Government due to his earlier involvement in a case concerning the Prime Minister. Instead, the judge was transferred to a smaller High Court. While not diminishing the importance of any High Court, Justice Ansari emphasised that such actions erode judicial stature and independence.

Combined with the lack of transparency in addressing allegations of judicial impropriety, these developments suggest that the judiciary, if not compromised, is certainly operating under intense executive pressure—a deeply troubling reality for a constitutional democracy.

Justice Ansari was particularly critical of the judiciary’s response to hate speech, “bulldozer justice,” and violations of the Places of Worship Act. He questioned why inflammatory statements—such as calls for “revenge” by senior officials—fail to attract serious legal consequences under provisions like Section 153A of the IPC.

Similarly, when chief ministers openly make discriminatory statements without facing judicial reprimand, it signals a dangerous normalisation of constitutional violations. Although the Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines against bulldozer justice, these orders are frequently violated. The silence of the High Courts and the Supreme Court’s failure to enforce its own directives severely weakens the rule of law.

A judge, he stressed, takes an oath to act without fear or favour. If fear enters the system—whether through pressure or intimidation—the constitutional promise of justice stands diluted.

Shah Bano: Separating Law from Myth

The Shah Bano judgment remains one of the most misunderstood cases in Indian legal history. Justice Ansari clarified that the case had nothing to do with the validity of triple talaq. The sole legal question was whether a divorced Muslim woman could claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC after receiving Mehr and maintenance during the Iddat period.

Rather than resolving this core issue, the Supreme Court focused on the secular nature of Section 125. The subsequent Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, often portrayed as regressive, did not take away any rights. On the contrary, it imposed a greater obligation on the husband to make a reasonable and fair provision for the divorced wife’s future. Educated citizens must distinguish between legal facts and politically motivated narratives, he said

The views of Justice Ansari reflect a profound concern for the future of India’s constitutional democracy. His critique of electoral practices, judicial conduct, and executive overreach raises questions that go to the heart of democratic governance. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, the issues he highlights demand serious reflection from institutions and citizens alike. (Mohd Naushad Khan is associated with Radiance Weekly. He is also the host of the YouTube channel Expert Insights.)

**************

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed