Why we should care about . . . India's judicial independence

The moment we move away from direct (100% participatory) democracy to the more common (and, these days, probably more practicable - although we need far more participatory aspects) representative democracy, the issue of "checks and balances" becomes "a thing", to borrow some modern parlance. 

There are a range of forms of checks and balances, including: 

• elections (which can be flawed on the basis of the influence of political parties and possibly media influence/lack of or distorted information - incidentally, I like  the  Hare-Clark  concept); 
• houses of review, such as our  Senate - although those are typically based on regions, and most do not provide any (let alone adequate) representation to minority groups such as Indigenous people or specific minority ethnicities (Iraq  does), women, children, and other minority groups (Sweden has this); 
• dividing political power amongst several  competing (or independent) branches, on the basis that this will prevent abuses; 
• specific laws around human rights and human  dignity, etc; and 
• an independent judiciary.
  

The use of a tripartite division of power (executive, legislative, and judicial) evolved in England and France in the 1600s and 1700s, and has been fairly widely adopted since - including in India. 

An independent  judiciary is widely considered to be crucial in ensuring the "rule of law" as opposed to "the law of the jungle" or authoritarian , totalitarian, or dictatorial imposition of power by the few - or the one - over the many, widely done overwhelmingly at the expense of the many. It is a counter-balance to political and social power, achieved by holding the powerful to account to the same laws as anyone else. 

This includes ensuring that governments, and members of governments, obey the same laws as everyone else. 

It applies also in India. 

From the Wikipedia link above:

India follows constitutional democracy which offers a clear separation of powers. The judiciary is independent of the other two branches with the power to interpret the constitution. Parliament has the legislative powers. Executive powers are vested in the President who is advised by the Union Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The constitution of India vested the duty of protecting, preserving and defending the constitution with the President as common head of the executive, parliament, armed forces, etc.—not only for the union government but also the various state governments in a federal structure. All three branches have "checks and balances" over each other to maintain the balance of power and not to exceed the constitutional limits.^[31]

• President can set aside a law passed by the legislative or an advise given by the Union Council of Ministers when it is inconsistent with the constitution of India.
• Even if the president accepts a law passed duly by the legislative, it can be repealed by the Supreme Court after a fair trial if it is against the Basic structure of the constitution. Any citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court directly to repeal the unconstitutional laws made by the legislative or executive.
• President can be removed from office for unconstitutional decisions after an impeachment trial conducted by the parliament.
• President can be removed by Supreme Court of India under article 71(1) for electoral malpractice or on the grounds of losing eligibility for the position.
• Parliament can impeach judges of Supreme Court and High Courts of states for their incompetence and mala fides. A higher bench of judges can set aside the incorrect judgements of a smaller bench of judges to uphold the constitution.

Thus, concerns are being raised that the actual or perceived independence of India's judiciary may be compromised by a recent court decision absolving members of the political party holding power in India, the BJP, of responsibility for the destruction of a mosque in 1992 - which led to riots that killed thousands of people. 

Although freedom of religion is guaranteed by Article 25-28 of the Constitution of India, religion is a major divide in India, and has been the excuse for disturbing violence - including during the partition into India and Pakistan in 1947, an event which saw millions (likely around 15 million) displaced, hundreds of thousands (likely a million or more) killed, and many other appalling atrocities. 

The BJP has a policy which is widely seen or described as a form of "Hindu nationalism", and the BJP government of Prime Minister Modi is seen as having exacerbated religious violence against minorities - see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

There are other concerns about the economy and authoritarianism, as well - see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

The concern as a result of this court decision (which, as I haven't seen any details, could possibly be justifiable [although, based on what seems to be the case, I have doubts]) is that there is a pattern of behaviour diminishing democracy - actions such as favouring one section of society over another, silencing dissent, and now there is a question mark over the independence of the judiciary.

Now, I don't know how that influence diminishing independence could have been made (if, in fact, any such was made), but the fact that the concern exists on the basis of a perception is significant, particularly in the light of other concerns.

For India, the world's most populous democracy, this is disturbing, but why should we care?

Well, apart from simple human compassion and decency: 

• India has a very large population - almost 1.4 billion at the time of writing, 17.5% of the world's population, only exceeded by China; 
• India's GDP is third in the world - exceeded only by the USA and China (and the European Union), and the nation has considerable exports and imports; 
• India's location is significant - for instance, considerable maritime traffic passes by, and it borders West and Central Asia; 
• India's relationship with China has been fraught, and, on the India-Tibet border, the dispute has become "hot" (physically violent) several times - probably the only location here an increasingly  assertive and at times aggressive China is facing that; 
• China's occupation of Tibet gives it control over the water supply to much of South and South-East Asia - a water supply China's growing population is hungry for, together with the hydro-electric potential of those mighty rivers.
  

In all considerations of possible responses to China's growing power, India is crucial. 

In those deliberations, the likelihood that India will behave constructively is increased by the nation being more liberal and democratic - the current concerns suggest an increased prospect for poor decision making, whether out of an attempt to try to distract people in India by a bit of "foreign grandstanding", distraction by internal unrest, or just the flawed perceptions and thinking that ALWAYS underlies discriminatory practices. 

This is exacerbated by the history of warfare between the two nations on the Tibet-India border, China's "belt and road initiative", and China's long  standing support and developing economic relationship with predominantly Muslim (the Islamic Republic of) Pakistan - a relationship made more significant by the Modi government's reprehensible actions in Kashmir. 

The world's two most populous nations are at (minor) loggerheads, but they and their allies are loaded with powder kegs and neither can  confidently be held likely to act responsibly. 

We should care a very great deal about what is happening in India - and that caring should include that nation's people, and the people of the entire region, a caring that should be particularly foremost in the minds of all nations that glory in their former membership of the British Empire, which created a significant part of the current mess.