At the Sarat Chandra Bose Memorial Lecture this year, the former chief justice of the Orissa High Court and senior advocate of the Supreme Court, S. Muralidhar, said that the Supreme Court is perceived to be especially active when there is a coalition government at the Centre but far less proactive when there is a majority government. He referred to the undermining of the judicial verdict by Indira Gandhi, which would immediately lead the minds of the listeners to the efforts to ‘capture’ the judiciary. The former judge suggested that the Supreme Court was less proactive now that there is a majority government, and alluded especially to the repealing of Article 370 of the Constitution that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, and also to the electoral bonds case in which the Supreme Court had not objected to it being passed as part of the money bill. But this is a complicated issue. The apex court has now quashed the electoral bonds scheme on the grounds of its lack of transparency for voters. Some would suggest that the Supreme Court was perceived as asserting itself during the United Progressive Alliance government’s rule. Their contention would be that the highest court was stringent, for example, in the 2G spectrum and the coal block scandal, but its recent initial ruling on mining in the Aravalli range area suggested less assertiveness. It reversed its own judgment, and stopped mining in the entire site, awaiting expert opinion.

There are whispers that the crux of the tensions between the National Democratic Alliance government and the Supreme Court came to the surface after the Supreme Court asserted judicial independence by striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission, which may have allowed political interference in the appointments of judges. The Centre has since been sitting on the court’s recommendations, causing delays and case pile-ups. Even then, the Supreme Court has been perceived as being allegedly accommodative of the government in numerous cases — critics would cite the implementation of the National Register of Citizens in Assam, for example, as well as the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The Bhima Koregaon case and, now, Umar Khalid’s prolonged incarceration may also be seen as instances in which the court was thought to be allegedly quieter. Mr Muralidhar’s contention cannot be dismissed; but an assessment of the court’s agility cannot be based on the perception of an eminent individual alone; a broader debate and its outcome would be illuminating.