SC verdicts hold out hope for India’s vexed democracy

At a time when the nation's fractious political discourse is loaded with conflicting and competing perspectives on constitutionalism, the Supreme Court's role as the arbiter of constitutional conscience assumes heightened significance. Invested with a wide judicial review jurisdiction, the apex court has earned the nation's respect for its wisdom in charting the course of balanced constitutionalism in testing times.

This is so notwithstanding the occasional errors of judgment. The court's acknowledgment of its fallibility and a demonstrated willingness to correct itself has added to its weight as the ultimate forum for judicial justice.

In the context of some of its past decisions perceived as equivocate and flawed for want of a clear statement, its recent pronouncements signal a welcome affirmation of liberty and human dignity as the nation's core constitutional values, holding out hope for India's vexed democracy in 2025.

Some recent decisions that have quietly found their way into the lexicon of human rights jurisprudence and inspire confidence in the resilience of our constitutional institutions deserve mention. These include the Surender Panwar [2025] case, in which the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court terming the 14 hours 40 minutes' long custodial interrogation of the accused as "not heroic" and "against the dignity of a human being."

The decision is a resounding judicial rejection of tortious custodial interrogation. It draws attention to the imperative of fair investigation in accordance with international human rights norms laid down by the UN.

The decision is particularly significant in the context of India's much-delayed ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which it had signed in 1997.

While the Supreme Court has consistently treated all forms of torture as violative of the individual's right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution [DK Basu (1997), Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah (2024) et al], it has been inexplicably ambivalent in nudging the government to legislate a comprehensive legislation against torture in line with the UNCAT as a necessary step towards the elimination of all forms of custodial torture.

Having proclaimed the unconstitutionality of tortious investigative measures, the court is expected to proactively facilitate the enactment of a comprehensive legislation against torture. Its power to do so stems from the willing allegiance of the people to its commands anchored in legal integrity and reflecting the 'community's coherent conception of justice and fairness' (Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire, 1986).

Treading on the libertarian path in a correction of past aberrations and restoring the constitutional balance, the highest court, speaking through Justices Abhay Oka and AG Masih in Atharv Parvez [2024] has ruled that the restrictions on bail under a stringent penal statute needed to be harmonised with powers exercisable under the constitutional jurisdiction. It affirmed that long incarceration of the accused without bail is an infraction of Article 21 and that the criminal law doctrine of presumed innocence of the accused is not displaced by the seriousness of the crime with which the accused is charged. The same Bench declared in Parvinder Singh Khurana [2024] that a stay of the order granting bail can be passed only rarely and for reasons indicated in the statute.

The underlying premise of these judgments is the supremacy of the libertarian philosophy of the Constitution, reaffirmed in Sidhant [2024], in which the court granted bail to the accused despite stringent statutory conditions. It is hoped that the libertarian judicial approach will determine the fate of detenues, such as Umar Khalid, who has been in detention since September 2020.

Another significant decision of the Supreme Court in Urmila Dixit [2025], that emphatically asserts the right to dignity and succour for the elderly, merits the nation's fulsome commendation for a compelling moral dimension. Authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, the judgment, in a purposive interpretation of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, declared that the 'tribunals under the Act may order eviction [of the donee/children] if it is necessary and expedient to ensure the protection of the senior citizen' and can order possession of the property to be transferred if the condition of gift of property is not honoured by the donee.

The context is the painful reality of an increasing number of the elderly being neglected, ill-treated and cheated out of their assets and economic security by the children. The decision is a fine example of contextual justice that gives the beneficial legislation its purpose and meaning.

The generative power of the above judgments will doubtless fuel the progressive advancement of constitutional jurisprudence on human rights. But while the nation is entitled to hope that the judges will assist in articulating and defining the nation's sense of justice, the burden of ensuring a fair and equitable social order cannot, in fairness, rest with the judiciary alone. Freedom and justice are, in the final analysis, a product of ennobling politics that prizes liberty and human dignity above all. The will of the people moulded by their shared histories and gathered in a free contestation of ideas will eventually define the nation's future

Hopefully, the New Year will herald the beginning of a constructive politics of national renewal inspired by the elevating vision of our founders.