Supreme Court's Time Wasted On Cases That Could Have Been Resolved At Lower Levels, Experts Warn

It goes without saying that the time of the Supreme Court of India is precious. It is the final court of appeal, entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the Constitution, safeguarding rights, and resolving issues of national importance.

Yet, too often, its time is frittered away on matters that should never have reached the highest court in the first place. Monday’s hearings offer three telling examples. The first involved psephologist Sanjay Kumar, co-director of Lokniti at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).

He had shared, on social media, the findings of a study which suggested discrepancies in Maharashtra’s electoral rolls. Based on faulty data, his conclusions were flawed. Realising his mistake, Kumar withdrew the post and issued an apology. That should have settled the issue.

Instead, FIRs were filed against him in Nashik and Nagpur, reportedly at the instance of election authorities. Fearing arrest, Kumar was forced to knock on the doors of the Supreme Court. A Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai had to step in and order that no coercive action be taken against him. A bona fide error had thus been magnified into a case that consumed the court’s attention.

The second matter concerned a group of comedians accused of mocking persons with disabilities during a performance. Ridiculing disability is indefensible, for society has a moral duty to ensure dignity and equal opportunity for all citizens.

That said, this was a case that could have been resolved without the intervention of the apex court. The comedians apologised, and rightly so, promising to use their platforms to raise awareness about the rights of the disabled. The lesson is important, but the episode should not have required the highest court’s supervision.

The third instance was, perhaps, the most striking. Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad faced prosecution for a social media post commenting on “Operation Sindoor”. His words were interpreted as seditious, leading to the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by the Haryana government.

The SIT went beyond the post itself, seizing electronic devices like his computer and mobile phone and probing his foreign visits. Ultimately, the Supreme Court had to direct that lower courts refrain from proceeding on the chargesheet. At its heart, this was a matter of interpretation, one that hardly warranted an investigation of such scale.

Supreme Court Orders Dog Lovers & NGOs To Deposit Funds Upto ₹25,000 & ₹2 Lakh Within 7 Days In New Stray Dog Ruling In Delhi-NCR

These cases reveal a worrying trend: hypersensitivity by state authorities and institutions to criticism or error, leading to criminalisation of speech and opinion. India’s sovereignty is not threatened by a mistaken psephologist, an ill-conceived joke, or a poorly worded post. The real threat lies in wasting the Supreme Court’s limited time on matters that should have been addressed with common sense and proportion at lower levels of authority.