This is my personal observation, expressed under my fundamental right to free speech.
It is important to acknowledge that writing critically about the judiciary is difficult because the institution has always been extremely sensitive to any form of criticism. Over the years, accusations against the judiciary have rarely resulted in accountability. No judge has ever been convicted of wrongdoing.
Human nature tells us that every institution will have its share of bad actors who must be weeded out. Yet the judiciary remains the only self-governing body that resists external accountability. Any attempt to scrutinize it is often portrayed as an attack on judicial independence.
Today, the judiciary has become more powerful than the legislature—not only in India but also in the United States. Most other countries do not exhibit such an imbalance of power. The judiciary now interferes with nearly every facet of human life, including the most private aspect of all: marriage.
In ordinary life, if someone demands something unreasonable, it may be seen as corruption and dealt with mildly. But in the case of marriage, similar disputes can escalate into serious, non-bailable criminal cases. Why should the judiciary interfere in marriages to such an extent that people are now afraid of getting married at all?
The number of unmarried people in India is steadily rising. Within the next 20 years, we may see more unmarried individuals in their 40s without children than ever before. Many are avoiding parenthood because even securing a school admission for a child requires excessive donations, exorbitant fees, or political connections.
Marriage itself has become financially unaffordable. We now see cases where a woman demands exorbitant sums to dissolve a marriage after only six months, simply to maintain her lifestyle. Six months of marriage can hardly be considered a true marriage. Yet courts still entertain such claims.
Judges, unlike ordinary citizens, do not experience these struggles. They often decide cases based on preconceived notions. A damaging myth persists that women cannot be abusive and only men can be aggressors. This precedent is unfair. Every case should be judged on its own merits, not on general perceptions.
Yes, statistically men may be more violent, but this should not mean that all judgments tilt toward women. The case of Atul Subhash illustrates this imbalance. Suicide has been criminalized, yet when men end their lives due to marital or personal distress, there is often no investigation. This selective approach undermines justice.
What is most disheartening is that the judiciary—once the institution people trusted most—is increasingly issuing absurd judgments, staffed with judges who are rarely held accountable. Meanwhile, individuals accused of serious crimes such as murder are sometimes granted bail and roam free.
Our justice system does not have loopholes; it has become a loophole in itself. Tangible evidence is required to prove guilt, but even then, cases collapse. A murder weapon recovered at the scene may not be linked to the suspect, even when the identity of the culprit is obvious. This is an insult to human intelligence and justice.
The problem lies not only in marriage-related judgments but also in the outdated nature of our laws. Many are more than 150 years old, with only minimal reforms. Lawyers either resign themselves to frustration or exploit these archaic provisions to win cases.
In district courts, judges often appear uninterested. Some do not even look at the parties before them, relying solely on poorly kept files. Ordinary people waste days attending court, only to be granted repeated adjournments. Their time—which could have been spent working for a better life—is wasted.
What began as my reflection on the judiciary’s interference in marriage has now become an outpouring of frustration about the entire legal system. Perhaps this is a personal flaw—I see problems everywhere, whether as a software engineer, in the film industry, or now as a lawyer. Like Greta Thunberg, I find myself highlighting problems without offering solutions.
Still, it cannot be denied: the judiciary has serious problems. Earlier they were hidden, but the internet has now made them visible. Today I know more law through online resources than many lawyers with decades of practice in the past.
Sadly, I see no easy solution. Courtrooms today often fail to embody justice; instead, they reflect the darker sides of human nature.
Leave a Reply