The Inefficiency of the Indian Judiciary: A Historical Overview

Date: 06/01/2025

• Bibliography
• Landmark Cases Reflecting Systemic Inefficiencies
• The Collegium System: A Flawed Mechanism?
• Lack of Parliamentary Oversight
• Disconnect from Government Functioning and Policy Implementation
• Lack of Multidisciplinary Expertise
• Neglect of India’s Civilizational Heritage
• Examples of Over-Westernized Judgments
• The Way Forward

Inefficiency as a Mark of the Indian Judiciary: A Critical Examination Since 1950

The inefficiency of the Indian judiciary has become a defining feature over the decades, manifesting in delayed justice, mounting case backlogs, and a general erosion of public confidence. While the judiciary is lauded as the guardian of the Indian Constitution and the ultimate arbiter of justice, systemic inefficiencies have hindered its ability to fulfill its mandate effectively. These inefficiencies can be attributed to a confluence of structural, procedural, and contextual factors, exacerbated by loose constitutional guidance and accountability and a lack of robust institutional reform.

Backlogs and Delayed Justice

Since independence, the Indian judiciary has struggled with case pendency. As of 1950, the newly established Supreme Court and High Courts were designed to ensure justice and uphold constitutional principles and India’s great civilizational heritage. However, the system was burdened by a colonial legacy of procedural rigidity, which prioritized meticulous record-keeping over expeditious decision-making. Over the years, this inefficiency has worsened. By 2023, over 50 million cases were pending in Indian courts, with some litigants waiting decades for resolution.

One notable example is the Ayodhya dispute, which lingered in courts for over seven decades, reflecting not only the complex socio-political dynamics but also the judicial system’s inability to expedite sensitive matters of national importance. Such delays undermine the dictum “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Loose Constitutional Guidance

The Indian Constitution, while ambitious and detailed, provides inadequate guidance on the structural and operational framework of the judiciary. Articles 124 to 147 outline the judiciary’s composition and powers but remain silent on performance benchmarks, accountability mechanisms, and measures to address inefficiency. For instance, the Constitution lacks explicit provisions for time-bound disposal of cases, and a performance-based reporting system, leaving it to the judiciary’s discretion.

The system of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), introduced in the late 1970s, exemplifies the judiciary’s expansive interpretation of its powers. While PILs democratized access to justice, they also contributed to judicial overreach and docket explosion, as courts began addressing policy matters often better suited for legislative or executive action.

Overburdened Judiciary and Inadequate Infrastructure

Post-independence India witnessed exponential growth in population, economy, and complexity of legal disputes. However, the judiciary failed to adapt proportionately. As of 2023, India had only 21 judges per million people, far below the Law Commission’s recommendation of 50 judges per million. The inadequate appointment process, combined with delays in filling judicial vacancies, has compounded the crisis.

For instance, the All India Judges Association case (1992) highlighted the poor working conditions of lower judiciary members, including inadequate remuneration and insufficient infrastructure. Despite landmark judgments, reforms in these areas remain slow, contributing to inefficiency.

Complex Procedures and Lack of Accountability

The Indian judiciary’s procedural framework, largely inherited from British common law, emphasizes exhaustive documentation and adherence to procedural niceties. While these ensure fairness, they also result in protracted litigation. Frequent adjournments, a lack of strict timelines, and discretionary powers often allow cases to drag on indefinitely.

Additionally, the judiciary operates with minimal external accountability. The collegium system for judicial appointments, criticized for its opacity, has often resulted in delayed appointments and perceived nepotism. Moreover, the absence of an effective performance evaluation mechanism for judges has perpetuated inefficiency.

Landmark Cases Reflecting Systemic Inefficiencies

Several landmark cases illustrate the judiciary’s inefficiency:

1. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): While this case established the basic structure doctrine, it took over six months to conclude, with the judgment running into hundreds of pages. Such prolonged proceedings are emblematic of systemic inefficiencies.
2. Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984): Despite being one of the world’s worst industrial disasters, the victims had to wait for years for compensation, showcasing the judiciary’s inability to handle mass tort cases effectively.
3. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015): The judiciary struck down legislative attempts to reform the appointment process, reinforcing its autonomy but failing to address inefficiency within its own ranks.

The inefficiency of the Indian judiciary is not merely a symptom but a chronic ailment stemming from structural inadequacies, procedural rigidity, and loose constitutional guidance. While the judiciary has played a pivotal role in upholding democratic values and protecting individual rights, its inefficiency undermines its credibility and the rule of law.

Inefficient Judges: The Core of Judicial Inefficiency in India

One of the primary reasons for the inefficiency of the Indian judiciary is the inefficiency of judges themselves. Despite their critical role in interpreting laws and delivering justice, questions about the competency, accountability, and appointment process of judges persist. The opacity in judicial appointments, coupled with the lack of parliamentary oversight, has contributed to a judiciary that is often criticized for being out of touch with the needs of the populace.

Opacity in Judicial Appointments: An Enduring Issue

The Indian Constitution provides a framework for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, but it lacks clarity and transparency regarding the specific criteria and processes. Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution, which govern appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively, leave much to interpretation. For instance:

• The President of India appoints judges after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other senior judges, as deemed necessary.
• However, the Constitution does not specify objective benchmarks for assessing a candidate’s merit, competence, or integrity.

This vagueness has allowed the judiciary to evolve its own appointment mechanism, particularly through the Collegium System, which has become a point of contention.

The Collegium System: A Flawed Mechanism?

Since the Second Judges Case (1993), the collegium system has been the cornerstone of judicial appointments in India. Under this system:

1. A group of senior judges, led by the Chief Justice of India, recommends candidates for appointment to the higher judiciary.
2. The executive (President and Ministry of Law) has a limited role, primarily reduced to formal approval.

Criticisms of the collegium system include:

1. Lack of Transparency:
   • There are no publicly disclosed criteria or records for how decisions are made. For example, why one candidate is chosen over another remains unclear.
   • In 2015, Justice J. Chelameswar, a Supreme Court judge, famously dissented against the collegium’s functioning, citing its lack of transparency and accountability.
2. Perceived Nepotism:
   • The collegium is often accused of favoring individuals from specific families or groups, leading to a lack of diversity. The prevalence of “judicial dynasties” undermines merit-based appointments.
3. No Accountability:
   • The judiciary appoints its own members without external checks, which has led to allegations of favoritism and inefficiency.

Examples of Questionable Appointments and Inefficiency

Several appointments and judicial inefficiencies reflect the flaws in the system:

1. Justice C.S. Karnan Case:
   • Justice Karnan, a High Court judge, was notorious for his erratic behavior and was even sentenced to jail for contempt of court by the Supreme Court in 2017. His appointment and tenure exposed the inadequacies in vetting candidates for competence and temperament.
2. Inordinate Delays in Appointments:
   • The collegium often takes months, sometimes years, to finalize recommendations. For instance, the Madras High Court and other major courts frequently operate with over 30% of sanctioned posts vacant, exacerbating case backlogs.

Lack of Parliamentary Oversight

Unlike many other democracies where judicial appointments involve parliamentary scrutiny, India lacks a robust system of legislative oversight:

1. No Role for the Legislature:
   • The Indian Parliament has no say in judicial appointments. This stands in contrast to the U.S., where federal judicial appointments are subject to Senate confirmation, ensuring a system of checks and balances.
2. Striking Down of the NJAC Act:
   • In 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which sought to introduce a more transparent and inclusive system by involving the executive and eminent persons in judicial appointments. The judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s autonomy but also eliminated an opportunity for external oversight.
3. Excessive Judicial Independence:
   • While judicial independence is essential to uphold the rule of law, the complete absence of parliamentary involvement has created a system where the judiciary is accountable only to itself.

Consequences of Inefficiency and Lack of Oversight

1. Erosion of Public Trust:
   • The opaque nature of judicial appointments and the perception of favoritism erode public confidence in the judiciary.
2. Incompetent Judges in Key Positions:
   • The lack of clear criteria for appointments has sometimes led to the elevation of individuals who lack the requisite competence or ethical standards, further contributing to delays and inefficiencies.
3. Stalled Judicial Reforms:
   • The absence of external accountability mechanisms means that internal inefficiencies often go unaddressed, perpetuating systemic delays and backlogs.

The inefficiency of judges in India is deeply intertwined with the opacity of the appointment process and the lack of parliamentary oversight. While judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy, unchecked autonomy has led to a system that often lacks accountability and transparency.

Lack of Experience: A Critical Factor in Judicial Inefficiency in India

The inefficiency of judges in India is not just a product of systemic flaws in the judiciary but is deeply rooted in the lack of relevant experience and exposure among judges. Unlike their counterparts in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, Indian judges often lack the diverse professional backgrounds and practical knowledge essential for nuanced decision-making. This absence of experience in areas such as government functioning, international obligations, legal academia, and statecraft significantly impacts their efficiency and the quality of justice delivered.

Disconnect from Government Functioning and Policy Implementation

One of the critical shortcomings of Indian judges is their limited understanding of the functioning of the government and its obligations. Judges are expected to interpret laws and policies, often impacting governance at various levels. However, many judges in India are elevated from the bar without any substantial experience in public administration or policymaking.

1. Lack of Administrative Expertise:
   • Judges frequently make decisions that require a deep understanding of administrative realities. For instance, cases involving environmental regulations, public health policies, or economic reforms often necessitate an awareness of the practical challenges faced by the government.
   • The judiciary’s intervention in policy-driven matters, such as the coal block allocation case or the regulation of environmental clearances, has occasionally been criticized for its lack of administrative feasibility.
2. International Obligations:
   • In an era of globalization, judicial decisions increasingly intersect with India’s international obligations under treaties and trade agreements. However, most judges in India lack exposure to international law or experience in negotiating or implementing such obligations.
   • For instance, the Vodafone tax arbitration case, involving international investment treaties, highlighted the judiciary’s unfamiliarity with the intricacies of global trade laws.

Disconnection from Legal Academia

Judges in India also lack substantial engagement with legal academia, a stark contrast to jurisdictions like the United States and the United Kingdom, where judges often have a background in teaching or research in law schools. This disconnection has several implications:

1. Limited Theoretical Insight:
   • Legal education provides a foundation for understanding the philosophical underpinnings of law, comparative jurisprudence, and evolving legal theories. Without such exposure, Indian judges often rely solely on precedent, missing the opportunity to contribute to the development of the law.
2. Minimal Interaction with Future Legal Minds:
   • Judges rarely interact with students or participate in academic discourse, unlike their counterparts in the U.S. or U.K., who often teach at prestigious law schools. For instance, U.S. Supreme Court Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were noted legal scholars before and during their judicial careers.
3. Missed Opportunities for Reform:
   • Judges detached from academia are less likely to champion systemic reforms in legal education, which could address the very inefficiencies they encounter in the courtroom.

No Knowledge of Statecraft or Political Philosophy

Judges in countries like the U.S. and U.K. are often seasoned professionals with extensive experience in governance, statecraft, or public service. In contrast, Indian judges frequently lack exposure to these areas, limiting their ability to grasp the broader implications of their rulings.

1. Judges in the U.S. and U.K.:
   • In the United States, many Supreme Court judges, like Chief Justice John Roberts, have served in key government roles or as Solicitor Generals before their elevation. Such experience equips them with a nuanced understanding of statecraft and the interplay between law, politics, and governance.
   • In the U.K., judges often come from distinguished careers in both legal practice and public service, ensuring they have a well-rounded perspective on governance.
2. Judges in India:
   • Indian judges, on the other hand, are typically elevated from the bar or the lower judiciary, with little to no exposure to governance, diplomacy, or political philosophy. This limitation affects their ability to balance individual rights with state interests or to appreciate the complexities of policymaking.
3. Judicial Overreach:
   • The lack of statecraft knowledge has sometimes led to judicial overreach, where courts interfere in matters best left to the executive or legislature. For example, the judiciary’s involvement in framing guidelines for COVID-19 management drew criticism for its limited understanding of the logistical and policy challenges faced by the government.

Lack of Multidisciplinary Expertise

Indian judges are often limited to a purely legal perspective, unlike their counterparts in the West, who frequently have multidisciplinary expertise. This limitation hinders their ability to address cases involving technology, economics, medicine, and other specialized fields.

1. Inadequate Knowledge of Emerging Fields:
   • Cases involving data privacy, artificial intelligence, or cryptocurrency require judges to understand complex, evolving technologies. Indian judges often struggle with such issues due to their lack of exposure to multidisciplinary education.
   • In contrast, judges in developed nations often undergo specialized training or collaborate with experts to bridge this gap.
2. Lack of Diversity in Career Paths:
   • In India, the path to becoming a judge is relatively linear, focusing on legal practice or service in the subordinate judiciary. This narrow career trajectory fails to produce judges with diverse professional experiences.

Consequences of Limited Experience

1. Inefficiency in Decision-Making:
   • Judges with limited exposure to governance, academia, or statecraft often struggle to deliver judgments that are practical, balanced, and forward-looking.
2. Reduced Credibility:
   • The judiciary’s inability to understand the broader implications of its rulings undermines public trust in its competence and neutrality.
3. Missed Opportunities for Reform:
   • Judges without exposure to policy, education, or multidisciplinary expertise are less likely to advocate for systemic reforms in the judiciary or legal system.

The Indian Judiciary’s Failure to Develop Indigenous Jurisprudence

One of the most significant critiques of the Indian judiciary is its inability to evolve an indigenous jurisprudence rooted in India’s rich cultural and civilizational heritage. Instead, Indian courts have disproportionately leaned on Western judicial precedents and doctrines, often transplanting them into the Indian legal framework without adapting them to local socio-cultural realities. This over-reliance on Westernized legal thought has led to a disconnect between the judiciary and the masses, undermining the accessibility and relevance of justice in the country.

The Legacy of Colonial Influence

The Indian judiciary’s structure and functioning are deeply entrenched in the British colonial legacy. When the Supreme Court was established in 1950, it inherited a common law system that emphasized precedent, adversarial litigation, and English legal principles. While these frameworks were functional in the colonial era, they often clashed with India’s diverse traditions, customs, and value systems.

1. Anglicized Legal Education:
   • Law schools and legal training in India have historically focused on Western jurisprudence, sidelining the study of ancient Indian legal systems such as Manusmriti, Arthashastra, or Yajnavalkya Smriti, which offer insights into governance, dispute resolution, and ethics.
   • The absence of these indigenous texts in legal education has led to a judiciary that is divorced from India’s civilizational ethos.
2. Over-Dependence on Western Precedents:
   • Judgments from Western courts, particularly those of the United Kingdom and the United States, are frequently cited in Indian courtrooms. For instance, doctrines like “reasonable restrictions” or “basic structure” were adapted from Western ideas without adequately reconciling them with Indian social and cultural realities.

Overuse of Western Quotations Without Context

The Indian judiciary often incorporates Western legal doctrines and quotations in its judgments, giving an impression of erudition but failing to make these principles relevant to India’s unique socio-economic conditions.

1. Alienation of the Masses:
   • The excessive use of Western legal jargon and philosophies creates a sense of alienation for the common man, who struggles to relate to the principles governing judicial decisions.
   • For example, the use of John Rawls’ theory of justice or Oliver Wendell Holmes’ pragmatism might resonate in a Western context but often lacks relevance in India’s pluralistic and hierarchical social structure.
2. Lack of Contextual Adaptation:
   • When doctrines like “public trust” or “separation of powers” are adopted from Western jurisprudence, they are often transplanted without a nuanced understanding of Indian realities. For example, the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) borrowed heavily from Western constitutional thought to establish the “basic structure doctrine” without adequately rooting it in India’s historical or cultural framework.

The Neglect of India’s Civilizational Heritage

India has a profound and time-tested legal tradition rooted in ancient texts and practices, which the judiciary has largely ignored.

1. Arthashastra’s Administrative Wisdom:
   • Kautilya’s Arthashastra offers a comprehensive framework for governance, justice, and economics. Its principles of governance, fairness, and pragmatic decision-making could provide invaluable insights for contemporary jurisprudence, particularly in administrative law.
   • However, references to such texts in judicial decisions are rare, even in cases that could benefit from their application, such as those involving statecraft, resource allocation, or ethics.
2. Manusmriti and Customary Law:
   • Ancient texts like the Manusmriti, while controversial in some aspects, also contain principles of equity, justice, and community-centered dispute resolution that remain relevant in certain rural contexts.
   • Courts, however, have been hesitant to incorporate such indigenous practices, fearing accusations of regressive or religious bias, thus forfeiting an opportunity to blend traditional wisdom with modern law.
3. Panchayat and Village Systems:
   • India’s traditional systems of justice, such as Panchayati Raj, emphasize community-driven conflict resolution. Instead of integrating these mechanisms into the formal legal system, the judiciary has largely dismissed them as informal or outdated.

Consequences of Borrowed Jurisprudence

1. Judicial Disconnect from Indian Society:
   • The Indian judiciary often fails to resonate with the socio-cultural ethos of the people it serves. By relying on alien principles, it inadvertently alienates the masses.
   • For example, judgments on personal laws, such as those concerning marriage or inheritance, frequently fail to account for the cultural diversity and deeply rooted traditions of Indian communities.
2. Irrelevance in Rural Contexts:
   • The majority of India’s population resides in rural areas, where traditional values and practices dominate. Judicial reliance on Western principles often renders court judgments ineffective or incomprehensible to these populations.
3. Missed Opportunity for Global Leadership:
   • India’s failure to develop an indigenous jurisprudence prevents it from offering a unique legal framework to the world. By blending ancient wisdom with modern principles, India could emerge as a leader in culturally sensitive jurisprudence.

Examples of Over-Westernized Judgments

Shayara Bano Case (Triple Talaq, 2017):

While the Supreme Court’s judgment striking down triple talaq was progressive, it relied heavily on Western notions of gender equality without sufficiently exploring Islamic jurisprudence or the pluralistic traditions within India.

Environmental Jurisprudence:

In cases like MC Mehta vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court adopted the “polluter pays” principle and “public trust doctrine,” which are rooted in Western environmental law. These principles, though relevant, could have been enriched by references to ancient Indian traditions of environmental stewardship, such as the reverence for nature in Vedic texts.

The Indian judiciary’s over-reliance on Western legal principles, without adequately incorporating India’s rich cultural and legal heritage, has alienated the masses and limited the development of a truly indigenous jurisprudence. By revisiting ancient texts, respecting local traditions, and adapting legal principles to Indian realities, the judiciary can create a legal framework that is both modern and rooted in the country’s civilizational ethos.

The Way Forward

Addressing judicial inefficiency requires a multi-pronged approach:

1. Structural Reforms: Increasing the number of judges, modernizing court infrastructure, and leveraging technology to digitize records and streamline case management.
2. Procedural Overhaul: Simplifying legal procedures, limiting adjournments, and introducing time-bound case disposal mechanisms.
3. Accountability Mechanisms: Instituting performance reviews for judges, enhancing transparency in appointments, and revisiting the collegium system.
4. Constitutional Amendments: Providing clearer constitutional guidance on judicial efficiency and enabling legislative intervention to address systemic issues.

Reforms Needed

1. Transparent Appointment Criteria:
   • Establish objective, publicly disclosed criteria for assessing judicial candidates, including merit, integrity, and diversity.
2. Revive NJAC with Modifications:
   • Reintroduce a balanced version of the NJAC that ensures judicial independence while incorporating elements of parliamentary and executive oversight.
3. Parliamentary Involvement:
   • Consider models from other democracies where legislative bodies have a say in judicial appointments, ensuring checks and balances.
4. Accountability Mechanisms:
   • Institute periodic performance reviews for judges and strengthen the process for addressing complaints of inefficiency or misconduct.

Building a More Experienced Judiciary

1. Broader Eligibility Criteria:
   • Expand the eligibility criteria for judicial appointments to include professionals with experience in public administration, international law, and academia.
2. Engagement with Academia:
   • Encourage judges to participate in legal education as guest lecturers or researchers, fostering a deeper connection between the judiciary and academia.
3. Training in Multidisciplinary Fields:
   • Introduce specialized training programs for judges in areas like technology, economics, and international law to enhance their understanding of emerging issues.
4. Incorporate Statecraft Exposure:
   • Provide opportunities for judges to gain experience in governance through short-term deputations or collaborations with government bodies.

The Need for an Indigenous Legal Framework

1. Revisiting Ancient Texts:
   • The judiciary must integrate the wisdom of India’s ancient legal texts, such as the Arthashastra, Manusmriti, and Dharma Shastras, alongside modern principles, creating a hybrid jurisprudence that respects India’s past while addressing contemporary challenges.
2. Cultural Sensitivity in Judgments:
   • Judicial decisions should be informed by India’s diverse traditions and socio-economic realities, ensuring that justice is not only delivered but also understood and accepted by the people.
3. Legal Education Reform:
   • Law schools must include courses on ancient Indian legal systems, customary laws, and comparative legal traditions to create a new generation of judges capable of developing an indigenous jurisprudence.
4. Encouraging Academic Research:
   • Greater emphasis should be placed on research and publication in areas of Indian jurisprudence, supported by collaboration between legal scholars, historians, and policymakers.

Bibliography

1. Systemic Inefficiencies and Opacity in Judicial Appointments

1. “Courts and Their Judgments: Premises, Prerequisites, Consequences”
   • Author: Arun Shourie
   • Publication Date: 2001
   • Why Read:
     Arun Shourie critically examines the Indian judiciary’s functioning, highlighting inefficiencies, lack of accountability, and the opaque collegium system. His analysis includes landmark cases and systemic failures, offering a strong critique of judicial overreach.
2. “Judges of the Supreme Court of India: 1950–1989”
   • Author: George H. Gadbois Jr.
   • Publication Date: 2011
   • Why Read:
     This book provides a historical perspective on the appointment and careers of Supreme Court judges, shedding light on the criteria and patterns in judicial selections during the early decades of post-independence India.
3. “Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of India: Transparency, Accountability, and Independence”
   • Author: Arghya Sengupta
   • Publication Date: 2017
   • Why Read:
     Sengupta critiques the collegium system and advocates for reforms in judicial appointments. He explores the lack of accountability in the existing system and proposes more transparent mechanisms.

2. Lack of Experience and Multidisciplinary Exposure Among Judges

4. “Judicial Activism and Accountability: Issues and Dilemmas”
   • Author: Justice J. S. Verma
   • Publication Date: 2002
   • Why Read:
     Justice Verma reflects on the evolving role of the judiciary in governance and critiques its limitations, including the lack of exposure to statecraft and multidisciplinary expertise among judges.
5. “Comparative Constitutional Law”
   • Editors: Vikram Amar and Mark Tushnet
   • Publication Date: 2010
   • Why Read:
     This book provides a comparative analysis of constitutional systems, offering insights into how judges in countries like the U.S. and U.K. gain diverse experience before joining the judiciary, and what India could learn from these models.
6. “The Indian Legal System: An Enigma”
   • Author: Professor Werner Menski
   • Publication Date: 2006
   • Why Read:
     Menski discusses the gaps in legal education and judiciary exposure in India compared to Western legal systems. His insights underline why judges in India fail to match the multidisciplinary expertise of their counterparts in the U.S. or U.K.

3. Neglect of Indigenous Jurisprudence and Over-Westernization

7. “The Spirit of Indian Laws”
   • Author: N. R. Madhava Menon
   • Publication Date: 2006
   • Why Read:
     This book explores how Indian laws evolved under colonial rule and the judiciary’s failure to incorporate indigenous jurisprudence post-independence. Menon advocates for blending modern legal principles with ancient Indian legal traditions.
8. “Kautilya’s Arthashastra”
   • Translator and Editor: L. N. Rangarajan
   • Publication Date: 1992
   • Why Read:
     A definitive translation of the Arthashastra, this book offers a deep dive into ancient Indian principles of governance, statecraft, and justice, showcasing the relevance of Kautilya’s insights for modern judicial practices.
9. “Hindu Jurisprudence: Ancient Indian Legal Thought”
   • Author: P. S. Sivaswamy Aiyer
   • Publication Date: 1914
   • Why Read:
     This classic text examines the legal systems of ancient India, emphasizing their philosophical and practical aspects. It provides a robust foundation for understanding India’s indigenous jurisprudence.
10. “The Case That Shook India: The Verdict That Led to the Emergency”
    • Author: Prashant Bhushan
    • Publication Date: 1978
    • Why Read:
      The book critiques the judiciary’s reliance on Western legal principles during pivotal moments in Indian history, including the infamous Kesavananda Bharati case.

4. Judicial Overreach and Disconnect from Indian Society

11. “Judicial Review of Legislative Acts: A Comparative Study of India and the U.S.”
    • Author: Mahendra P. Singh
    • Publication Date: 1981
    • Why Read:
      This comparative study highlights how judicial overreach in India, stemming from a reliance on Western precedents, often ignores the socio-cultural realities of Indian society.
12. “The Unwritten Constitution of India”
    • Author: Durga Das Basu
    • Publication Date: 1984
    • Why Read:
      Basu argues for a deeper understanding of India’s civilizational heritage and unwritten constitutional traditions, urging the judiciary to adopt a more contextualized approach.

5. Reforming the Indian Judiciary

13. “Indian Judiciary: Castes in the Temple of Justice”
    • Author: Abhinav Chandrachud
    • Publication Date: 2018
    • Why Read:
      Chandrachud critiques judicial elitism and the lack of diversity in India’s higher judiciary. He argues for systemic reforms, including integrating indigenous jurisprudence into judicial processes.
14. “The Globalization of Justice: Judging Beyond Borders”
    • Author: William Twining
    • Publication Date: 2009
    • Why Read:
      Twining examines how courts worldwide integrate local traditions with global legal principles, providing valuable lessons for India to evolve a more grounded and indigenous jurisprudence.
15. “Law and Social Transformation in India”
    • Author: Marc Galanter
    • Publication Date: 1989
    • Why Read:
      Galanter explores the relationship between law, society, and culture in India, urging the judiciary to address social realities rather than blindly adopting Western frameworks.

Read more

Atul Subhash Case Exposes Indian Judicial Corruption & Delays