Once the last bastion against executive overreach, India’s judiciary today stands accused of capitulating to the ideological project of Hindutva—an ethno-nationalist vision that seeks to establish India as a Hindu-first nation.

The creeping erosion of judicial independence is not merely a matter of conjecture; it is evident in the actions, statements, and post-retirement sinecures of those who once wielded the gavel. With an increasing number of verdicts and judicial appointments aligning seamlessly with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) ideological imperatives, one must ask: Has the judiciary become an extension of Hindutva?

The subservience of sections of the Indian judiciary to the executive has been exposed in recent years through a series of statements and verdicts that show an unmistakable pattern. Justice M.R. Shah, then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, called Prime Minister Narendra Modi a “model and a hero” in 2018, only to be elevated to the Supreme Court months later. In 2021, during the Gujarat High Court’s Golden Jubilee celebrations, Justice Shah doubled down, effusively praising Modi as “our most popular, loved, vibrant and visionary leader.” The pattern of judicial adulation extends beyond Shah. Former Supreme Court Justice Arun Kumar Mishra went as far as to call Modi a “versatile genius who thinks globally and acts locally.” This thinly veiled obsequiousness raises a fundamental question: When judges turn into cheerleaders for the executive, how can they be trusted as impartial arbiters of the law?

Post-retirement rewards have only deepened suspicions of judicial compromise. Justice Arun Mishra was appointed Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) soon after retirement, despite protests from rights groups who cited his questionable judicial record. His tenure at the NHRC has been marked by a reluctance to hold the........

© Eurasia Review