Rebuilding Trust in the Judiciary

To overcome trust deficit, the judiciary requires collective action from judges, lawyers, policymakers, and the public.

By Advocate Suresh Tripathi |Published: 2024-12-15

In any democracy, the judiciary is one of the most vital institutions, acting as the protector of rights, the arbiter of justice, and the bulwark against governmental excess. But in recent years, there has been growing concern over a serious issue that threatens this institution: the erosion of public trust in the judicial system. When citizens begin to question the credibility, impartiality, or efficiency of the courts, the very foundation of democratic governance is weakened. This trust deficit, as highlighted by Supreme Court Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai in his recent address at the Annual Conference for Judicial Officers, poses a serious threat—not just to the judiciary, but to society as a whole.

The Trust Deficit: A Growing Concern

The trust deficit in the judiciary is not a new phenomenon, but it has become more pronounced in recent years. From allegations of corruption to delayed justice, there are multiple factors contributing to this problem. Justice Gavai, in his speech, underscored the importance of this issue, warning that a loss of trust in the courts could push people towards seeking "justice" through informal means—vigilantism, mob justice, or corruption. This is not just a theoretical concern. Throughout history, we have seen that when formal institutions fail to deliver, people often take the law into their own hands, with devastating consequences.

In any society, when individuals or groups start believing that the legal system is skewed, inefficient, or biased, the rule of law begins to deteriorate. Once that happens, a nation can slip into a state where might becomes right, where mob justice prevails over legal justice, and where the powerful can escape accountability while the marginalized suffer. Trust in the judiciary is not just about faith in the courts; it is about maintaining order, stability, and fairness in society.

Why Public Trust Matters

Why is public trust in the judiciary so crucial? First, the judiciary is the ultimate arbitrator in disputes between individuals, businesses, and the government. If people lose faith in the courts, they are less likely to use legal channels to resolve conflicts. This, in turn, could lead to an increase in violence, as people resort to extra-legal measures to settle scores.

Second, the judiciary serves as a check on the power of other branches of government. It ensures that laws are upheld, that executive actions are within constitutional bounds, and that citizens’ rights are protected. If public trust in the judiciary erodes, so too does its ability to function as an independent and impartial institution. In a democracy, the judiciary must not only be independent, but it must also be perceived as independent and fair. Without that perception, its rulings and decisions will be met with skepticism, or worse, outright defiance.

Finally, public trust is essential for the judiciary’s ability to promote social justice. Courts are often tasked with resolving sensitive and contentious issues—whether related to gender, race, religion, or economics. If people believe that judges are biased, corrupt, or subject to external influences, the judiciary’s capacity to deliver justice on these critical issues will be diminished. The marginalized and vulnerable sections of society, who rely most on the protection of their rights, would be the ones to suffer the most.

Causes of the Trust Deficit

The causes of the growing trust deficit in the judiciary are multifaceted. Justice Gavai's speech covered several of these, and they are worth exploring further:

1. Corruption: Even the perception of corruption within the judiciary can have a corrosive effect on public confidence. While outright bribery may be rare, subtle forms of corruption—such as favoritism, undue influence, or conflicts of interest—can create the impression that the legal system is not impartial. When justice is seen as being for sale, the public loses faith in the courts’ ability to serve as neutral arbiters of the law.

2. Delays in Justice: As the adage goes, "justice delayed is justice denied." India’s court system is notorious for its backlog of cases, with millions of cases pending for years or even decades. Prolonged litigation leads to frustration and "litigation fatigue," as noted by Justice Gavai. People become disillusioned when they realize that seeking justice through the courts may take longer than they can afford, both financially and emotionally.

3. Perceived Bias: The perception of judicial bias—whether along lines of class, caste, gender, or politics—can severely damage public trust. In today’s polarized world, where social media amplifies every perceived injustice, even a single offhand comment by a judge can lead to widespread belief that the judiciary is not impartial. Justice Gavai referenced this concern, noting how even the perception of bias in sensitive cases involving marginalized communities can create lasting harm to the judiciary's reputation.

4. Lack of Transparency: Transparency in judicial proceedings is essential to fostering public trust. When decisions are rendered without clear reasoning or when judicial processes appear opaque, the public is left to speculate on the motivations behind judgments. Courts must not only be fair, but must also be seen to be fair. Lack of transparency fuels suspicion and conspiracy theories, further eroding trust in the system.

5. Misconduct by Judges: Misbehavior by judges, both on and off the bench, has a particularly damaging impact on public perception. Whether it’s inappropriate comments, ethical lapses, or abuse of power, such incidents cast a shadow over the entire judiciary. In recent years, high-profile cases of judicial misconduct, though rare, have been highly publicized, contributing to the sense that judges are not held to the same standards of accountability as other public officials.

A Way Forward: Rebuilding Trust

While the challenges are significant, the judiciary can still take concrete steps to rebuild public trust. Justice Gavai’s speech highlighted several potential solutions, and these should serve as a starting point for broader reform.

1. Enhancing Transparency: One of the most effective ways to restore trust is by making the judicial process more transparent. The introduction of e-filing systems, real-time case tracking, and live-streaming of important cases are steps in the right direction. As Justice Gavai noted, technology can play a crucial role in curbing corruption and making the legal system more accessible to ordinary citizens.

2. Tackling Delays: Reducing the backlog of cases is a daunting task, but it is essential if the judiciary is to regain public trust. Courts must prioritize efficiency without sacrificing fairness. This includes implementing strict timelines for case management, reducing the culture of adjournments, and expanding the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to lighten the load on the court system.

3. Strengthening Ethical Standards: Judges must be held to the highest ethical standards, both in their professional and personal conduct. This means ensuring that allegations of misconduct are investigated swiftly and transparently. It also means fostering a culture of humility and accountability within the judiciary, where judges recognize the enormous responsibility they bear and avoid actions that could undermine public confidence.

4. Combating Bias and Promoting Inclusivity: The judiciary must actively work to combat bias and ensure that justice is delivered impartially, especially in cases involving marginalized communities. Initiatives like the Supreme Court’s gender sensitization handbooks and LGBTIQA+ sensitization modules are positive steps toward creating a more inclusive legal system. However, these efforts must be expanded and integrated into the daily workings of the judiciary to make a lasting impact.

5. Educating the Public: Public understanding of the judicial process is often limited, leading to misunderstandings and unrealistic expectations. Courts must do a better job of educating the public about how the legal system works, the reasons behind certain rulings, and the importance of due process. Increased legal literacy will help bridge the gap between the judiciary and the public, reducing the sense of alienation that contributes to the trust deficit.

The trust deficit in the judiciary is not an insurmountable challenge, but it requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders—judges, lawyers, policymakers, and the public itself. Justice Gavai’s warnings about the potential consequences of this erosion of trust should serve as a wake-up call. Without public confidence, the judiciary cannot fulfill its role as the protector of rights, the enforcer of laws, and the guardian of democratic values.

Rebuilding trust will take time, but it is essential for the health and stability of our democracy. The judiciary must rise to the occasion by embracing transparency, efficiency, ethical behavior, and inclusivity. Only then can it restore the faith of the public and ensure that justice continues to be delivered impartially, fairly, and in a timely manner. The stakes are high, but the rewards—an empowered, respected, and trusted judiciary—are well worth the effort