But such expressions of exasperation are dangerous. They can spoil even some landmark judgments. The courts will have to deal with so many delicate issues, and it is important that their judgments display the integrity and clarity of judicial reason, rather than be a patchwork of compromises and predispositions. Second, they are another example of judicial policy-making which is not evidence-based. (China executes hundreds on corruption charges, and corruption does not disappear.) But most importantly, they signal that the judiciary is not amenable to deeper self-reflection and principled argument.

Enhancing the authority of the judiciary is largely within the judiciary’s control. For one thing, the Supreme Court or states’ chief justices will have to impose some discipline on runaway high court interventions. Second, the enormous power judges wield makes the question of transparency in the appointments process more rather than less urgent. Judicial appointments are a tricky matter, but there is a sense amongst the public that this process has become too immune from scrutiny. Authority without virtue is a dangerous state of affairs; unfortunately virtue has to be established through a process rather than simply assumed. Ovid once wrote that the “judge’s duty is to inquire about the time as well as the facts”. While much has been written about the infrastructural issues that lead to delays in justice, the plain truth is that many of the causes for judicial delay are squarely in the hands of judges: time discipline on arguments, ease of granting adjournments, and so on. The judiciary’s general exasperation with us would be more credible if it understood our exasperation with its functioning.

... contd.