Who Defines “Indian”? The Supreme Court’s Overreach and the Politics of the Bench

 

In a democracy, no institution no matter how big should be above questions. Not Parliament, not the government, and definitely not the Supreme Court. But looking at recent events, it feels like the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to decide who is a “true Indian.”

We’ve all seen a trend since 2014 if you don’t align with a certain narrative, your patriotism is questioned. You get painted as “anti-national,” “urban Naxal,” or someone who doesn’t believe in our institutions. Now, it seems even the apex court has joined this trend and that’s dangerous.

Take the recent case where a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan slammed Rahul Gandhi for questioning the government about China occupying Indian land. The message it sends? That asking tough questions on national security is unpatriotic. But in a parliamentary democracy, questioning those in power is not against the country it’s part of our duty as citizens.

And here’s the bigger problem: the court said that as an MP, Rahul Gandhi can ask such questions in Parliament. But what about us? Why can’t I, as a journalist and citizen, ask my government questions on social media especially when this government is a “social media government” that focuses heavily on image building? If leaders can give statements on social media every day, why is it wrong for us to question them there? Why is only this one matter being scolded by the Supreme Court, and not others?

It’s not just the Supreme Court. In another case, a Bombay High Court bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla criticised the CPI for showing solidarity with the people of Gaza. Whether you agree with CPI or not, political expression even about global issues is a democratic right. Courts are supposed to protect those rights, not decide which causes are “acceptable.”

Adding to this is the controversy over the SC collegium recommending Arati Sathe as a Bombay High Court judge. She was a BJP spokesperson until 2024, when she quit the party. Nothing wrong with her applying, but in times like these, such appointments raise questions about judicial neutrality. In matters of justice, perception matters as much as merit.

After this post, some will try to colour me too label me anti-national, an “urban Naxal,” or someone who doesn’t believe in the judiciary. But ask yourself how am I supposed to trust institutions when they are restricting my rights, teaching me “patriotism,” and defining who is a “real Indian”? Patriotism isn’t about blind agreement; it’s about protecting the space to ask questions without fear.

The Constitution gives courts the power to interpret laws, not to hand out certificates of patriotism. That power belongs to the people through debate, protest, and voting. If courts start deciding who is a “real Indian” and which causes are okay to support, we’re heading towards a country where rights are rationed and silence is rewarded.

And that silence—that’s the real danger to India.