The concerns voiced by critics of the 26th Amendment have proven to be not only justified but alarmingly prescient. Since its enactment, the judiciary’s decisions have increasingly appeared to be influenced by executive interests, casting doubt on the independence of one of the state’s most vital institutions. The recent expansion of the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench exemplifies this troubling trend, raising questions about the transparency and impartiality of judicial appointments.
The decision to expand the bench with five additional judges—all recently elevated to the Supreme Court—rather than considering senior, more experienced justices, lacks a clear legal or moral justification. Instead, the move appears politically motivated, reinforcing fears that the judiciary has been compromised. The exclusion of senior judges in favor of individuals whose decisions may align with the executive’s agenda raises serious concerns about the erosion of judicial integrity.
Objectivity in judicial appointments demands a rigorous assessment of merit, particularly when it comes to constitutional matters of national significance. However, the current selection process appears to prioritize ideological alignment over competence and independence. The lack of transparency in these decisions damages the judiciary’s credibility, diminishing public trust in the legal system. Without a judiciary perceived as impartial, the very foundation of democratic governance is weakened.
Calls from various legal stakeholders to include all Supreme Court justices in deliberations over the 26th Amendment have been repeatedly ignored. This refusal to entertain such demands suggests an aversion to broader scrutiny—an alarming indicator of how judicial processes are being manipulated to serve political ends. The selective expansion of the bench is not just a procedural matter; it is a direct assault on the legitimacy of the judiciary itself.
Those who have maneuvered to exert control over the judiciary must recognize that their victory is a hollow one. By undermining the judiciary’s independence, they have inflicted lasting damage on the state’s institutional integrity. The Constitutional Bench is tasked with deciding cases of immense consequence, and any perception that its judges have been handpicked to deliver predetermined outcomes will only deepen public cynicism and sow discord within society.
A justice system perceived as biased cannot expect its rulings to be accepted as fair and impartial. By sidelining independent-minded judges, the state risks weakening the very institution that ensures stability and governance. If the judiciary continues down this path, it may soon find itself stripped of its most fundamental asset—public trust.