Benevolent Illusions in a Developing Society: the Assertion of Supreme Court Authority in Democratic India

Abstract

sM t , ANY PEOPLE consider India politically developed and socially backward. Few polities have so successfully institutionalized basic rules of game and structures of governance amid mass poverty, illiteracy, extreme social diversity, and rising expectations. Scholars have accounted for this apparent paradox by emphasizing early institutionalization of Congress party and Indian Civil Service, unusual elite consensus created through years of nationalist struggle, continuous creation and crystallization of new institutions at local level, and unique adaptability of Indian traditions (cf. Huntington 1968: 84; Kothari 1970; Rudolphs 1967; Weiner 1967). This essay argues that such explanations are incomplete insofar as they have not emphasized central role played by Indian Supreme Court. While most standard treatments of Indian polity mention judicial system as an important colonial legacy, much greater attention is given to other institutions (cf. Kothari 1970a, which fails to mention judiciary; Hanson and Douglas 1972: 46, consider Supreme Court unimportant before 1967, a point contested below). In recent years, politically explosive judicial decisions have created new interest in Supreme Court (cf. Rudolphs 1981). However, systematic analysis of Court as a political institution is rare. (Gadbois 1981, is an important exception. Most serious commentary on Court has been conducted by Indian legal scholars and journalists. See Baxi 1980; Dhavan 1977.) Huntington's general framework for study of political institutions has been adopted for purposes of analysis (Huntington 1968: 1-92; for other applications of Huntington to India, see Hart 1980; Sisson 1972, 1973). He suggests that political development is measured by capacity of political institutions to meet and shape political demands. Development (or institutionalization) is process by which organizations and procedures acquire and stability. Further, level of political development can be defined by the adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence of its organizations and procedures. Huntington has described Congress party and Indian Civil Service as uniquely successful in channeling and meeting political demands in society with rapidly rising expectations (1968: 12, 84-85). I argue that Indian Supreme Court has also acquired value and stability, achieving requisite institutional criteria of adaptability, complexity, autonomy, and coherence. In so