Question From A Law Student: How Should The Judiciary Respond When Young Citizens Lose Trust?

As law students, we are taught to revere the judiciary as the ultimate custodian of constitutional democracy - an independent and impartial institution responsible for protecting the interests of justice. We spend hours memorizing the definitions of justice, the concept of rule of law and the historic precedents that have expanded the scope of human dignity and fundamental rights. Yet, outside the walls of the legal academia, the youth are forced to confront the troubling gap between the ideal and the reality: the disconnect between what ought to be and what is.

The growing rift between the youth and the bench was brought into sharp focus when a Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, and Justices Joymala Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi, ordered a sweeping ban on the publication and circulation of a Class 8 NCERT Social Sciences textbook, containing a chapter titled “The Role of Judiciary in Our Society.” The bench remarked, “Will not allow anyone on earth to play with the integrity and to defame the institution”, alleging that it was an attempt to taint the image of the judiciary, subsequently banning the authors from future publications. What makes this censorship so troubling is that the chapter merely cited accurate government data on the impending backlog of cases and acknowledged the presence of institutional corruption, a truth previously conceded by the former CJI S.P. Bharucha who publicly stated that up to 20% of the higher judiciary faces serious integrity issues.

The fact that the chapter presented corruption within the institution neutrally, raises serious questions on the rights of the citizens to criticize an institution responsible for disbursing justice. When the Apex Court responds to documented truths with blanket bans, it risks replacing constitutional introspection with administrative opacity, sending a strong message that questioning or fairly criticizing authority is treated as defamation rather than constructive reform.

The faith of the youth is further shattered when high-profile cases such as the infamous Pune Porsche case forces us to question the legal scale of accountability that tilts on the basis of power, influence and money. When a minor involved in a drunk-driving case that resulted in the death of two individuals, is left with a penalty as lenient as a 300-word essay, while the less privileged languish in prison for decades, the youth are left questioning the integrity of the system. For a generation that has been struggling for basic socio-economic opportunities, seeing heinous crimes committed by privileged offenders met with trivial outcomes severely damages public confidence in the equal protection of laws guaranteed under Article 14.

The erosion of faith further extends to the gender jurisprudence. Even landmark cases like the Nirbhaya case, despite being fast-tracked took seven agonizing years to reach the final conclusion. More recently, the Patna High Court setting aside a conviction for attempt to rape under section 376, held that confining a woman inside a locked room, pressing her chest and attempting to force off her lower garments merely constituted “outraging her modesty” under section 354 IPC. While the Supreme Court subsequently took exception to the judgment and reiterated the need for judicially sensitive guidelines, the fact that such reasoning exists within the High Court raises serious questions about the judicial system’s ability to safeguard basic human dignity.

The sense of alienation deepens when the judiciary addresses the youth with apparent disdain. “There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment and don’t have any place in the profession.” When the highest figure of the judiciary makes such remarks about the youth it becomes really difficult for them to trust such a system to protect their interests. This sense of alienation is further compounded when the youngsters take to the streets to exercise their constitutional rights, only to find that the courts have closed their doors to their pleas.

During the recent student protests at the Jantar Mantar regarding systemic paper leaks and examination transparency, cases of severe police brutality and state excess were brought before the court, supported by video evidence. The CJI, refusing an urgent listing of petition, remarked- “We are not interested in videos; we don’t have time to watch….Don’t waste our time.” An institution that considers the protection of the interests of students against severe brutality as a “waste of time”, fundamentally fails in its constitutional mandate and duty of care. The Court is expected to be the first refuge against arbitrary state action, not another closed door.

How can young people maintain faith in a judicial system that met their pleas for protection with utter indifference, during their most vulnerable moment?

Faith in the judiciary cannot be earned through performative declarations or contempt of court orders, but it must be earned by ensuring institutional transparency, empathetic jurisprudence and an unwavering commitment to constitutional principles. As law students, our criticism does not stem from cynicism or disrespect, but from an earnest desire to see the courts function in the interests of the public and as the true protector of the powerless. The youth simply wish to inherit a legal system that does not turn a blind eye to the grievances of the young citizens and proves that no authority, neither the state nor the court itself, is above accountability.

As a law student my question is addressed to the students, lawyers, educators and the member of the bench- the people who form a crucial part of our legal ecosystem. As students we are taught that the judiciary is the ultimate custodian of our rights, however there are several incidents that forces us to question this narrative. When criticism is treated as contempt, when accountability is severely compromised and when pleas for protection is met with indifference, an important question remains: How can the youth be expected to sustain unreserved faith in a system that has failed them at so many crucial instances?

Question From A Law Student' Vertical, steered by Himanshi Hans