Judicial reforms must if India aspires to become a global leader by 2047
As India prepares to celebrate 100 years of its independence in 2047, the nation stands at a critical juncture, one that calls not just for reflection, but for resolute reaffirmation of the foundational ideals enshrined in our Constitution, that is, equality, justice, fraternity, inclusivity, and liberty. However, if our intent, content, character, and commitment to these ideals are compromised, no vision, no matter how grand, can lead to genuine, sustainable progress. Lofty slogans, glittering events, and ambitious roadmaps may create temporary excitement, but without authentic adherence to our core democratic values, such displays are hollow. They amount to little more than hype, hoopla, and hypocrisy.
India's journey from colonial rule to becoming the world's largest democracy is a powerful story of resilience and aspiration. Yet, as we look toward 2047, celebrating a century of freedom cannot simply be an act of commemoration. It must be a collective mission to realize the unfulfilled promises of independence. True development cannot be built on foundations where voices are silenced, inequalities deepen, or where institutions falter due to compromised ethics. A nation can only rise as high as the strength of its moral spine, and this strength is defined not by rhetoric, but by action rooted in fairness, truth, and unity.
A troubling paradox persists but no one is bothered. Nearly 85 per cent of the population, comprising Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and other economically disadvantaged communities, continues to grapple with entrenched socio-economic, educational, and political deprivation. Despite decades of constitutional safeguards and welfare policies, the journey toward equitable development remains riddled with systemic barriers and broken promises. SCs, STs, and OBCs, along with the rural and urban poor from other communities, overwhelmingly occupy the bottom rung of India's socio-economic pyramid. Their lives are often marked by landlessness, insecure livelihoods, wage exploitation, and poor access to health and nutrition.
A significant proportion remains dependent on the informal sector, which offers neither security nor dignity. The intersection of caste and poverty further compounds the exclusion, as Dalits and Adivasis continue to face discrimination in accessing even the most basic services like housing, clean drinking water, and sanitation. Even within economic growth narratives, the benefits have remained concentrated among the upper-caste urban elite, with only marginal trickle-down effects. Wealth inequality has widened alarmingly, with the richest 10 per cent holding over 75 per cent of the country's wealth, while the poorest majority are denied the opportunity to break free from generational poverty.
Education remains a powerful tool for emancipation but for the marginalized, it is often out of reach or poor in quality. Despite affirmative action policies such as reservations in educational institutions, dropout rates remain disproportionately high among SCs and STs, particularly at the secondary and higher levels. Majority of rural and government schools suffer from understaffing, poor infrastructure, caste bias, and language barriers, conditions that particularly disadvantage first-generation learners. Moreover, digital exclusion during the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the inequalities in access to technology and online education. Students from marginalized families were left behind, deepening the already wide learning gap.
While the Constitution provides for political reservation for SCs and STs in legislative bodies, real political empowerment remains elusive. In many instances, elected representatives from marginalized communities serve as mere figureheads, with actual decision-making controlled by dominant social groups. Tokenism and co-optation have replaced genuine inclusion, and grassroots participation in governance is minimal. Furthermore, policy-making continues to be shaped by upper-caste bureaucracies and think tanks, with limited representation of the lived experiences and voices of the deprived majority. Despite the rise of some regional political formations centered around OBC and Dalit identities, the larger structure of Indian politics remains steeply unequal and resistant to transformative change.
India's democratic promise will remain incomplete unless it fundamentally addresses the historical and structural inequalities faced by its marginalized majority. This calls for redistributive justice, radical educational reform, and authentic political representation. True nation-building will require dismantling caste and class hierarchies, not just in words, but in practice, through inclusive growth, dignity for all, and a renewed commitment to constitutional morality.
Our judiciary, often hailed as the guardian of democracy, is grappling with a crisis that threatens the very essence of justice—delay. The principle - justice delayed is justice denied – has never been more relevant, as over 5 crore cases are currently pending in Indian courts (National Judicial Data Grid, May 2025). Of these, more than 4.2 crore are pending in subordinate courts, 60 lakh in High Courts, and over 80,000 in the Supreme Court. Shockingly, more than 2.5 crore cases have been pending for over one year, and over 50 lakh for more than 10 years, reflecting a judicial system crippled by chronic delays. The average time to dispose of a civil case in India often stretches between 8 to 15 years, depending on the jurisdiction.
One of the key causes is the severe shortage of judges. India has just 21.03 judges per million population as compared to 107 in the US and 51 in the UK (Law Commission of India, 2014, reaffirmed in 2023 by NITI Aayog). Additionally, frequent adjournments, outdated procedures, and inadequate court infrastructure compound the delays. This wait is not just a legal issue. It has deep human and economic costs. Victims languish without closure, undertrials rot in jails, and businesses suffer due to commercial disputes stuck in litigation for years. According to the Economic Survey 2018, judicial delays cost India up to 1.5 per cent of its GDP annually.
If India aspires to be a global leader by 2047, judicial reforms must be treated as a national emergency. Justice cannot be a privilege for the few. It must be timely, transparent, and accessible for all. The idea of a free, fair, and equitable India in 2047 must be a lived reality for all. Let 2047 not just be a milestone in our history, but a testament to a conscious civilizational leap, a moment when India proves that its growth is as just as it is rapid, as inclusive as it is innovative, and as principled as it is powerful.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Trans woman entitled to be recognised as woman: Andhra HC
VIJAYAWADA: In a significant verdict affirming the rights of transgenders, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Saturday ruled that trans women (individuals who transition from male to female) cannot be denied recognition as women under the Indian law solely on the grounds of their inability to bear children. The court further categorically rejected the argument that womanhood is tied exclusively to reproductive capacity, stating that such a claim is 'completely incorrect and legally unsustainable'. It made it clear that defining womanhood by the ability to reproduce goes against the spirit of the Constitution, which guarantees dignity, equality and identity to all citizens, irrespective of gender. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa highlighted the Supreme Court directions in the landmark NALSA vs Union of India case, which clearly upheld the rights of transgenders, including the right to self-identify their gender. The High Court stated that this recognition is protected under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that trans women are entitled to protection under IPC Section 498A - a provision dealing with cruelty by a husband or his relatives - just like cisgender women. 'Denying such protection by questioning their womanhood amounts to discrimination,' the Judge noted. While hearing a petition filed by Viswanathan Krishnamurthy and his parents, who challenged a dowry harassment case registered against them by Shabana, a trans woman from Ongole, who alleged cruelty and dowry demands from her husband and in-laws. The couple lived together in Ongole for a brief period before Viswanathan reportedly left for Chennai, and ceased communication. Shabana subsequently approached the Ongole women police station, alleging that her in-laws threatened to kill her, and that her husband verbally abused her. Based on her complaint, the police registered a case against Viswanathan, his parents, and relatives under IPC Section 498A.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
The book that breathes truth
One of the book's greatest strengths lies in its clarity of structure. Tharoor guides the reader through the key elements of the Constitution, starting with the preamble and then proceeding to the various organs of the state, the principles of separation of powers, fundamental rights, duties, and the directive principles. He explains, in precise yet straightforward terms, how India's Constitution borrows elements from many global traditions—the parliamentary model from Britain, judicial review from the United States, and a detailed rights framework with a strong moral core. However, the book is far from a celebration alone. He delves into how recent policy moves—such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC)—have challenged the secular, inclusive core of the Constitution. He argues that these measures, by introducing religion as a basis for citizenship, represent a sharp break from the constitutional consensus of 1950. Tharoor is equally scathing about the shrinking space for cooperative federalism. He critiques the central government's increasing tendency to bypass state governments, citing decisions such as the demonetisation exercise and the abrupt Covid-19 lockdown as evidence of growing executive unilateralism. He warns that this concentration of power in the Union government, run by the BJP, threatens to undermine the quasi-federal structure envisioned by the Constitution. In another compelling section, Tharoor discusses the role of civil society movements in constitutional change. He uses the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption protests as a case study to explore how activism can pressure governments, but cautions against substituting street-level mobilisation for representative democracy. What distinguishes Our Living Constitution from a standard textbook is its deeply political tone. He directly critiques the writings and speeches of Hindutva ideologues like Savarkar, Golwalkar, and Deendayal Upadhyaya—arguing that their vision of India as a 'Hindu Rashtra' is fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution's values. He asks, 'will constitutionalism tame Hindutva, or will Hindutva transform the workings of the Constitution from a democracy to a 'dharmocracy'?' And yet, the book is not devoid of hope. Tharoor celebrates moments of popular resistance, such as the anti-CAA protests and the farmers' agitation, as evidence of India's resilient democratic spirit.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Ordinance raj during Emergency: 48, including 5 to amend MISA, promulgated
The Indira Gandhi government promulgated 48 ordinances during the Emergency period, including five to amend the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, often dubbed as "draconian", that gave the administration the powers to detain any individual without a warrant. The 21-month-long Emergency, which was imposed 50 years ago on June 25, 1975, also saw the government amend the Constitution several times, including to keep the elections to the offices of President, Vice President, Prime Minister and Speaker beyond the scrutiny of courts and insert the words 'socialist', 'secular' and 'integrity' in the Preamble. The amendments to the various laws also shifted the balance of power in favour of the Centre and curtailed the powers of the higher judiciary. The first ordinance to amend the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was promulgated on June 29, 1975, within days of the Emergency proclamation. The MISA (Amendment) Ordinance was promulgated four more times during the Emergency period and cleared by Parliament. Live Events A day later, President Fakruddin Ali Ahmed promulgated the Defence of India (Amendment) Ordinance that gave the government broad powers to maintain public order. Brief sessions of Parliament were held during the Emergency. The Congress, using its brute majority and with several opposition leaders in jail, passed draft legislation to put the parliamentary stamp of approval on several ordinances. "The sessions of Parliament were shorter than usual during the Emergency period, mostly to pass bills to replace ordinances and approve new legislations," former Lok Sabha secretary general P D T Achary told PTI. Another key ordinance issued during the Emergency was the Disputed Elections (Prime Minister and Speaker of the House of the People) Ordinance to set up an authority to deal with a petition questioning the election of the prime minister and the speaker. It was issued on February 3, 1977, just over a month before the Emergency ended on March 21. Instead of allowing an election petition to be filed in a high court against the verdict of an election, it created an authority to deal with such high-profile cases. The Ordinance was converted into a law and subsequently repealed by the next government. While 26 ordinances were issued in 1975 after the imposition of the Emergency, 16 were brought in 1976. In 1977, before the Emergency ended, six ordinances were promulgated. Referring to the functioning of Parliament, Achary said most of the opposition members of Parliament were in jail and hence passage of bills was easy. He said the 42nd Constitution (Amendment) Act brought "radical" changes to the Constitution. The 44th Constitution (Amendment) Act later passed by the next government overturned many changes brought by the 42nd Amendment. Changes made to Article 352 relating to the imposition of the Emergency left things "open for interpretation", Achary said. The phrase internal disturbances was open for interpretation, he said. The 44th Amendment later inserted the phrase armed rebellion due to which the Emergency can be imposed. Achary said armed rebellion could not be interpreted or misinterpreted. PM Gandhi recommended the imposition of the Emergency to the President without the consent of the Union Cabinet, citing the deteriorating situation due to which a Cabinet meeting could not be convened immediately, Achary said. He said as the amendment stands now, signatures of all Cabinet members are required to send the recommendation to the President to proclaim Emergency. Achary asserted that the most important amendment was the one made to Article 359 post-Emergency. Article 359 states that after the Emergency declaration, the President can issue orders suspending civil liberties and fundamental rights. But according to the amendment brought by the Janata government, the President can suspend fundamental rights except Articles 20 and 21. While Article 20 protects from unfair conviction, Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. Achary described Article 21 as the "essence" and "fulcrum" of fundamental rights. Parliament also approved bills to extend the tenure of the Lok Sabha by one year each on two occasions. The House of the People (Extension of Duration) Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on February 4, 1976, weeks before the term of the House was to end on March 18, 1976. The Rajya Sabha passed the Bill on February 6, 1976, to extend the tenure of the Lok Sabha by one year. A similar bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament in November 1976 to further extend the term of the Lok Sabha by a year beyond March 1977. However, Gandhi called for elections on January 18, 1977, and the Emergency was lifted as the new government led by Janata Party leader Morarji Desai assumed office on March 24, 1977. The MISA was repealed in 1978 after widespread criticism of its misuse, especially during the Emergency period. The Defence of India Act, enacted amid the 1962 India-China war to deal with public safety, lapsed after the Emergency ended in March 1977. Some laws enacted during the Emergency, including the amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution and the introduction of fundamental duties alongside fundamental rights, continue to be in force. Article 123 of the Constitution provides that ordinances having the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament may be issued by the President from time to time except when both Houses of Parliament are in session.
