[Answered] Critically examine the challenges faced by the Indian judiciary in ensuring independence while dealing with politically sensitive cases. How do judgments like those in Arvind Kejriwal’s case and Bilkis Bano’s case reflect on judicial integrity?

The Indian judiciary is tasked with upholding independence, especially in politically sensitive cases, but it faces multiple challenges. Recent judgments, such as in the Arvind Kejriwal excise policy case and the Bilkis Bano case, highlight these tensions.

Challenges in Ensuring Judicial Independence

• Executive Influence: In politically charged cases, the judiciary often faces subtle or overt pressure from the executive. This can manifest in the form of controversial judicial appointments, transfers, or political backlash when rulings go against government interests.
• Use of Procedure as Punishment: Investigating agencies often weaponize legal procedures to punish individuals without securing a conviction. The practice of prolonging detention for “non-cooperation” during interrogation is often employed as a pretext for incarceration, even when substantive evidence may be lacking. This practice undermines the right against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
• Bail Denials and Personal Liberty: There is an increasing trend of lower courts automatically denying bail in politically sensitive cases, regardless of whether the legal grounds justify such denials. Both Justice Bhuyan and Justice B.R. Gavai have highlighted this issue, noting that trial courts and High Courts often fail to safeguard personal liberty, particularly in high-profile cases.

Judicial Integrity in Politically Sensitive Cases

• Arvind Kejriwal Case: Justice Bhuyan’s critique of Kejriwal’s arrest reflects a refusal to accept vague justifications such as “evasive replies” or “lack of cooperation” as grounds for prolonged detention. His judgment called out the CBI for using procedural delays to deny liberty, stressing that such actions violate the spirit of constitutional protections. This stands in contrast to the view of Justice Surya Kant, who accepted the CBI’s rationale without deep scrutiny. Bhuyan’s detailed examination underscores the need for vigilance in upholding personal freedoms.
• Bilkis Bano Case: The release of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, despite their convictions for heinous crimes, similarly raises concerns about political influence on judicial outcomes. This case exemplifies how post-conviction relief can be manipulated through remission laws, often at the cost of justice for victims of politically motivated violence.

Conclusion

While the judiciary strives to maintain independence, politically sensitive cases expose cracks in its armor. The Arvind Kejriwal and Bilkis Bano cases underscore the challenges of judicial integrity, particularly when confronted with executive pressure and procedural manipulation. To safeguard its independence, the judiciary must resist external pressures and uphold its duty to protect personal liberty, especially in the face of politically charged circumstances.