Is Questioning Judiciary Becoming a Taboo?

Democracy flourishes not when its institutions are placed on a pedestal but when they are placed under scrutiny.

- SANTISHREE DHULIPUDI PANDIT

Democracy is built on debates. Institutions are the foundation of the democracy. Yet, increasingly, the institution of the judiciary seems to function not on discourse and debates but as an echo chamber. The Vice President's recent remarks criticising the Supreme Court for directing the President to act within a timeline on Bills passed by state legislatures have stirred a hornets' nest. What followed was an orchestrated moral outrage. Sadly, not over the constitutional issue raised but the audacity of questioning the judiciary itself. A judiciary that has recently been plagued with corruption and has just transferred the judge. Nobody is above the law including judges. India is a parliamentary democracy with parliamentary sovereignty.

This is not just about one verdict or one voice of dissent. It's about a disturbing pattern. The moment the judiciary is questioned, even politely, the response is framed as an attack on judicial independence. Why has this branch of democracy become such a taboo for criticism? When did honest scrutiny become equivalent to heresy? It is perhaps time we moved beyond binaries of judicial independence vs. executive overreach and instead examined the real issue in front of us: are we ready for institutional accountability across all branches of the state?