When Justice Meets Politics
A judge’s verdict pulled aside the curtain, and what we saw was not courtroom theatre but a governance crisis. The Delhi liquor-policy litigations exposed a bigger question: when premier probes and media narratives build a political story, what happens if courts later find the evidence shaky or the FIR itself flawed? If top agencies’ case files crumble, should we not demand answers from the investigators, the appointing authorities, and the political masters who benefit from perception?
This is not courtroom gossip. It’s a national sanity check. Did investigative agencies become instruments of political theatre? Did appointment and oversight structures allow selectivity in probe and prosecution? If a chief minister, deputy CM, and multiple elected leaders were effectively put out of public life while cases slogged on and courts later said the basis was weak, who pays for the democratic disruption? Do voters get a redo?
We must ask bluntly: where is judicial accountability when the system that names investigators and frames enquiries is itself politicised? And where is executive accountability when statecraft is substituted with spectacle? If institutions like CBI, ED, CAG, and courts are pillars, then checks and balances must be visible, not seasonal.
Call it satire if you want, but this is a serious civic test.
Transparency in appointments?
Public debate on the rule of law? These aren’t rhetorical flourishes; they are practical demands. The people deserve clarity, not continuing theatre. Democracy cannot survive on smoke and subpoenas.