India’s judiciary stands at a crossroads, grappling with the delicate balance between law, faith, and impartiality in its decision-making.

Just like your body requires organs to keep you up and running, a country also requires organs to keep things running smoothly. These organs are namely – the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. Just as the supreme power of evolution granted us the organs we need to go about our lives, the Constitution of a country, establishes the framework within which these entities can operate. The Executive branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws, the Legislature drafts the laws, and the Judiciary ensures their proper interpretation and application for the dispensation of justice.

These three branches are interconnected in various ways, with their interdependencies varying from country to country. Given the overlap in their duties, history bears witness to numerous conflicts among them. The documented power struggles have existed at least since the Middle Ages. Then, the debate on who could truly rule a nation – the king or the church, illuminated many kingdoms through crusades and execution. Kings have played an important role in spreading religion, be it King Asoka who promoted Buddhism and planted the seeds for its growth across the border, or be it King Alfred, who helped embed Christianity in the ethos of England. In the Middle Ages, men and women who had dedicated their lives to serve a higher power, were regarded as more literate than the general populace owing to the education they received through their religious affiliation. Churches and monasteries made tangible efforts to serve the populace by taking care of the needy and looking after the weak. Most people in England back then were illiterate and thus heavily relied on priests for the interpretation of the Bible and for the path forward. People attended sermons regularly, which granted the church significant influence over people’s lives.

Given the power the Church held over the citizens, a clash between the king and the church was imminent. The Church was organized as such – the Pope was the head of the Catholic church and resided in Rome. He was responsible for setting up the guidelines which were to be applied in totality by the other church leaders of Europe. In England, the Archbishop of Canterbury was the leader of the church and was tasked with many important responsibilities, such as coronation of the king or queen of England.

As Christianity spread across Europe, the clashes between the Church and the monarch increased too. The monarch and the Church fought over authority – about who could make key appointments in the Church and about how to rule over a kingdom. While law was still a matter of concern for the king and secular courts did exist, it had also become a matter of concern for the Church. The Church operated under its own legal system and its decrees were based on Canon law – a set of religious laws that govern the internal administration and hierarchy of a Christian church, as well as the conduct of its members. The church exercised judicial powers over matters related to moral conduct, marriage and family and clerical misconduct. The Church was seen as the guardian of morality and spiritual wellbeing and as such, its judgment on ‘moral’ sins were valued and respected by the proletariat. The matters that befell in the monarch’s court were related to land disputes, trade, taxation, feudal obligations and crimes not related to the clergy. Across Europe, a point of contention common in the tensions between the monarchs and the Church, was the “Benefit of Clergy”, a privilege Clergy members could claim to be tried under canon law instead of harsher secular laws. Monarchs contended that such a privilege led to lighter punishments. Thus, as religion spread and clergymen became a larger proportion of the population, judicial authority became a matter of concern.

In the mid 12^th century, King Henry II was ruling over England. Henry II was keen to have greater control over the Church and appointed his friend, Thomas Becket, to the most important job in the Church – Archbishop of Canterbury. Though Becket was a close and a loyal friend, when he became the Archbishop, he became a defender of the Church and hailed its authority as supreme. Their conflict came to a head over the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164), a set of policies intended to curb clerical independence. Becket vehemently opposed Henry’s efforts, refusing to concede the Church’s right to self-governance. One thing led to another and as tensions reached the pinnacle, four of the king’s most loyal knights found Becket and demanded he yield to the king’s authority, to which Becket refused. In a violent encounter, they struck him down, killing him near the altar.

One thing can be said with confidence – kings and queens across the world always envisioned a judicial system that blessed them with immunity. King Henry VIII’s desire for an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was a major catalyst for his historic dispute with the Catholic Church. This dispute led to the English Reformation and the creation of the Church of England. After its creation, Henry declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England, effectively severing ties with the Roman Catholic Church. In today’s time, Churches have been replaced by Courts and the animosity has turned into friendships. While the Middle Ages were colored red a hue of tension between the monarch and the Church, the present day is colored a rosy pink by the camaraderie between the government and the court.

Take the courts in Russia for example. Many Russian companies choose English law to govern their contracts and designate English courts or arbitration in the UK as the forum for resolving disputes. There is a common perception amongst the people that Russian courts are not independent and are marred by corruption across the board. Ethan Burger, Adjunct Associate Professor, American University, said that he believes Russia has not achieved the rule of law and is not likely to in the near future. In Russia, judges of the Constitutional Court are nominated by the President of Russia and must be approved by the Federation Council (the upper house of parliament). The President also appoints the judges of the Supreme Court, Regional and Lower Courts and Arbitration Courts. Currently, the appointment process is reportedly under the control of Viktor Ivanov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin and fellow former KGB agent. Besides, there are very few incentives for the judges to adhere to principles of neutrality, given the moderate salaries they earn, which pale in comparison to the bribes they get offered to pass judgements in the favor of a particular party. Judicial practice is neither standardized nor transparent. The judge decides based on the merits of the case but then seeks bribes from both sides and rules in favor of the highest bidder; or the judge issues a ruling based on the dictates of state officials or organized crime.

Back home, the Indian judicial system seems to be going back to the Middle Ages – owing to the inclusion of the Holy Spirit in matters of law. In a recent interview, the omnipresent CJI Chandrachud opined, “Independence of judiciary doesn’t mean always delivering verdicts against the government. To be independent, a judge must have the independence to decide what their conscience tells them, of course, the conscience which is guided by the law and the Constitution.” It was only a week or two ago, however, when the CJI contended receiving influence from another entity – Lord Ram, in his judgments. In fact, it was the CJI himself who went to the deity and prayed for a solution.

While worshipping God is a matter of personal belief, one wonders if God is now to sit in and arrive at judgments on matters of land disputes, petty thefts, illegal contracts, and business malpractices. If the CJI is relying on his religion to arrive at judgments rather than years of study of the rule of law, principles of justice, and precedents, ordinary citizens like you and I could pray to our individual lords too and follow the path that comes to us in our dreams, since that is what the CJI seems to be doing as well. Years of tensions between the courts, the Church, and the kings seem to have culminated in one solution – friendship. If freedom from personal biases is not observed by the highest court in the country, why should the lower courts be required to adhere to an unattainable standard? The apex court of the country has always been a place of worship – the only difference is that earlier, the deity was the principle of justice and fairness, but today it is the deity whom the CJI prays to in times of difficulty.

The apex court has seen petitions filed arguing whether the Places of Worship Act 1991, which sought to maintain the religious character of places of worship as they were on the day India got independence, is even constitutional. The Supreme Court has in the past refused to interfere with the orders passed by the lower courts that allowed for a survey to be conducted. In May 2022, while hearing the case pertaining to the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, where petitioners claimed that the mosque was originally a temple, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that while the 1991 law barred changing the character of a place of worship, the “ascertainment of a religious character of a place, as a processual instrument, may not necessarily fall foul” of the Act. A bench led by him also refused to interfere with the order of a civil court in Varanasi to conduct a survey of the mosque.

This observation by the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates for petitions being filed in various courts of the country. As recently as last month, a petition filed in Sambhal requesting a survey to be carried out on the Jama Masjid in Sambhal led to the death of twenty-one people. In the following week, a petition was filed in Ajmer, claiming that the Ajmer Sharif dargah was originally a Shiva temple and seeking a survey of the site.

Given the rise in the batch of petitions being filed by Hindu religious groups requesting surveys to be conducted on various places of worship, the Supreme Court has constituted a special bench. The special bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and will comprise two other judges – Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan. The matter will be taken up on December 12 at 3:30 pm. The Union Government is a party to all such petitions but is yet to file its response.

The lead petition in the batch of cases is filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who alleges that the 1991 law violated Article 25 (right to practice and propagate religion) and Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution, besides being discriminatory by barring religious communities from approaching courts to restore their places of worship. He even questioned the Centre’s power to enact such legislation.

Indian judiciary seems to be at a crossroads – while the current CJI turns to God to seek clarity and guidance in passing his judgments, religion knocks on the door of the apex court to seek its assistance in establishing a place to worship the religion. One wonders who is seeking the assistance of the other in deciding what’s the best path forward. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is known for his sermons and his fear about how his legacy will be remembered. His legacy leaves a cocktail of flavors – while some of his judgments, such as in the case of electoral bonds, will be regarded as just and bold, some of his other decrees, such as the one that led to increased communal tensions in the country, will be regarded as unjust and inequitable.

The Indian judiciary now stands at the precipice. It has to decide just how much influence it is willing to accept on its decision-making – whether it be from a biological being or otherwise.