It might take a lot to dim the shine of Mr Narendra Modi, but the growing number of judicial sentences and comments around the Best Bakery case are beginning to cast a faint shadow. The Bharatiya Janata Party was certainly not mistaken in the firm strength of Mr Modi. It needs a Mr Modi to swallow unfazed the sharp criticism of the Supreme Court and ask for what amounts to a review of the court’s April 12 order for the transfer of the Best Bakery case out of Gujarat into Maharashtra. The court has taken serious exception to the application which argues that the transfer order was made on a petition that did not seek the shift, and that the court had no suo motu power to order such a transfer. The court’s reprimand to Mr Modi and his men has been sharper than before, and it has refused to reconsider its earlier comment on “modern-day Neros” which even Gujarat’s strongman had found unpalatable. But whatever glee Mr Modi’s detractors may feel over the series of stinging statements delivered by the Supreme Court, what is truly heartening is its reassertion of the ideals of justice. Its hope that “real, effective and substantial justice” will be done is a significant statement in the context of the Gujarat genocide, and its efforts to ensure this are of immense value.

But a disorder in the system inevitably multiplies in effect. In this case, the apparently “defensive attitude” of the Gujarat government towards the alleged perpetrators of the massacre, the state-prosecutor “nexus” that connived to stonewall evidence from key witnesses, and the “monstrosity of the manner” in which “the courts below” dealt with the matter, have determined the Supreme Court’s stand. The state and the judiciary left it with no option. However valuable and significant its decision, it is not a desirable state of affairs. If the Supreme Court is perceived as the only source of justice in the land, in a position to actually criticize lower courts, it is an indication of the failure of the layered and intricate justice system. It also points to an abdication of responsibility by the state. Such a situation demands a re-examination of two areas, the first being recruitment in the judiciary and the series of internal checks and balances within the justice system itself. The other is the permeation of democratic politics by religion-based rhetoric and the nature of the power that is generated by the release of deep-rooted prejudices. The Supreme Court’s stand will ensure a better hearing for the Best Bakery victims, perhaps also the protection of the witnesses in the 10 post-Godhra cases. But restoring balance in the polity may not be easy as long as strong men abound.