On Supreme Court Judges: Judges are meant to serve the Constitution, not stand above it.

Judges are meant to serve the Constitution, not stand above it. When the highest court starts looking like an exclusive club that writes its own rules, moves slowly for the poor and quickly for the powerful, and does not look like the country it judges, public trust slowly dies. That is not good for India in the long run.

This is not an attack on every judge as a person. Many work hard. The problem is the system they have built around themselves, the gaps in who sits on the Bench, and the uneven way justice is delivered.

The Collegium: Judges Choosing Judges

The Constitution says the President appoints Supreme Court judges after consulting the Chief Justice. Over time, the Court turned that into the Collegium: a small group of senior judges recommending names, with the government expected to go along. Parliament tried to change this with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The Supreme Court struck it down in 2015.

The result is that judges largely appoint judges. The process is closed. Reasons for picking one name and rejecting another are not fully public. Critics say this creates a self-perpetuating group.

Who Sits on the Bench?

P. Wilson, a senior advocate and DMK Rajya Sabha MP, has repeatedly raised this in Parliament and in a private member’s Bill. He points to a “diversity deficit.” Government data given to Parliament showed that of 593 High Court judges appointed between 2021 and early 2026, about 73–80% came from general/forward communities. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBCs together formed a small share. Women and religious minorities remain few.

Independent analyses of the Supreme Court have long noted over-representation of certain upper-caste groups, including Brahmins, relative to their share of the population (roughly 4–5%). One 2025 analysis after a Dalit Chief Justice retired put Brahmins at around 36% of the remaining Bench in that snapshot, with other privileged Hindu groups taking the share of upper-caste judges well above half. Scheduled Tribes have often had zero representation. Women have usually been one or two.

Wilson’s argument is simple: a court that does not reflect India’s social mix will find it harder to understand the lives of most Indians. Judges bring their own background and networks. When those backgrounds are similar, blind spots grow. The Bill he moved seeks proportional representation of SC, ST, OBC, minorities and women, more transparent procedures, and regional benches so people from the South and East do not have to treat Delhi as the only seat of final justice.

The government replies that the Constitution does not provide caste reservation for judges and that merit and the Collegium recommendations decide appointments. Both sides have a point. Representation without quality is dangerous. Quality without any social mix is also dangerous in a country as unequal as India.

When Courts Start Making Policy

The phrase “behaving like Gods” comes from the feeling that some benches treat themselves as the last word on everything—policy, administration, even timelines for the President and Governors.

Public Interest Litigation began as a tool for the voiceless. It grew into a habit of the Court issuing detailed directions on firecrackers, liquor shops on highways, vehicle emissions, tourism in tiger reserves, and more. Some orders helped. Many looked like they belonged to the elected government or the legislature. Article 142, which lets the Court do “complete justice,” has been used in hundreds of cases. Critics, including former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, called some uses a “nuclear missile” against the other branches and said the Court was acting like a super-Parliament.

Recent examples include directions on how quickly Governors and the President should act on Bills. High Courts have also started pushing back against some Supreme Court rulings on arrests and election petitions, calling them disruptive. That tension itself shows the system is under strain.

Independence after the Emergency was necessary. Independence that answers to no one except itself is not the same as the Constitution.

Fast for Some, Slow for Most

India’s courts have a huge backlog—tens of millions of cases. The worst face of this is undertrial prisoners. For years, around 70% of people in jail have not been convicted. Many are poor, young, and from SC/ST/OBC backgrounds. They sit in jail because they cannot pay bail or because the case never moves. Some spend more time inside than the maximum sentence for the charge. The Supreme Court itself said this in Hussainara Khatoon in 1979. The problem is still here.

The same Court has repeatedly said delay itself becomes punishment and violates Article 21. Yet the pattern continues. High-profile cases, powerful accused, and matters with media attention often get listed faster. Ordinary civil decrees can take years even after a party has already won. Execution petitions themselves pile up in the lakhs.

This is the everyday experience of the poor: justice delayed is justice denied. The rich and connected experience something closer to justice on demand.

Politics and Perception

Every government and every opposition accuses the Court of tilt when a case goes against them. That is not new. What matters is whether the pattern looks consistent.

Opposition voices point to long delays in hearing challenges to major laws and policies, while some PILs and contempt matters move quickly. They also point to bail being harder for certain activists and easier in other political cases. Supporters of the government point to orders against Governors, environmental curbs, and struck-down schemes as proof the Court still checks power. Both can find examples. The 2018 press conference by four senior judges against the then Chief Justice showed even insiders feared the institution was being damaged from inside.

Post-retirement jobs, recusal controversies, and the feeling that some benches are more comfortable with one political climate than another add to the suspicion. Perception of bias is almost as damaging as actual bias. Once people believe the highest court has a favourite side, the idea of equal justice under law starts to look like a slogan.

Why This Matters for the Long Run

A Constitution works only if people believe the rules apply to everyone. If judges appear to sit above the document they interpret, if the Bench looks like a narrow social group, if the poor wait decades while the influential get dates, and if political winds seem to affect listing and outcomes, then the Court stops being a referee and starts looking like another power centre.

India needs a strong, independent judiciary. It also needs one that is diverse enough to understand the country, transparent enough to be trusted, fast enough for the weak, and humble enough to stay within the Constitution instead of rewriting it case by case.

P. Wilson’s numbers and Bill are one attempt to force that conversation. The real test is whether the institution itself will treat the criticism as an attack or as a warning. Gods do not need to listen. Constitutional officers do.