The Judiciary's Silent Breach – A Call for Constitutional Accountability

The bedrock of India's democracy rests upon the principle of justice, meticulously crafted and upheld by its judiciary. However, a concerning "doctrinal vacuum" has emerged, where the Supreme Court, despite pronouncing landmark rulings, lacks a clear internal oversight policy to ensure the implementation of its own judgments. This critical oversight is not merely a procedural lacuna but a fundamental breach of constitutional duty, as powerfully highlighted by Rajnish Ratnakar in his recent works, " When the Judiciary Sleeps" and "Oversight Without Doctrine: A Citizen’s Indictment of India’s Highest Court".

Ratnakar's RTI application, filed on July 20, 2025 , boldly challenges this silence, asserting that information on internal appointment procedures and reasons for high-stakes judicial decisions should already be public under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This "proactive disclosure push" effectively shifts the burden of proof back to the institution, transforming the RTI into a tool of "constitutional audit" rather than a mere inquiry. By invoking Sections 4(1)(b)(iii) and 4(1)(c) , the RTI demands disclosure of internal appointment procedures, challenging the "myth of discretion" , and compelling the publication of reasons for judicial decisions, making "silence untenable".

The framing of this issue through Articles 14 and 21 elevates regional exclusion in judicial appointments to a question of "systemic discrimination and procedural opacity". Ratnakar's "doctrinal innovation" further demands certified copies of the “rationale for non-adoption” of regional representation policy, creating a new category of accountability where "the absence of doctrine [is] a violation in itself". This innovation turns silence into culpability, emphasizing that what's "missing, and why" is as crucial as what exists.

The consequences of this "dormant dharma of implementation" are dire. When Supreme Court rulings are unenforced, as seen with Anganwadi workers being denied their entitlements , or when Information Commissioners are appointed contrary to statutory mandates , it leads to "economic injustice", "structural bias", and "opacity in quasi-judicial governance". This non-implementation is not just a failure of process; it is a "constitutional injury to all citizens" , where the judiciary, through its silence, enables the erosion of fundamental rights.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, currently requires an "affected person" to initiate action. However, as Ratnakar astutely diagnoses, "who is not affected when constitutional rights are shredded?". This reliance on "politically appointed law officers" creates "enforcement paralysis" , reframing contempt from an individual grievance to a systemic one.

This groundbreaking approach, described as "RTI as Judicial Audit" , insists on timelines, procedural clarity, and citizen sovereignty over judgment enforcement , drawing inspiration from the Jayaprakash Reddy ruling. It postulates that if the judiciary cannot police its own verdicts, then public accountability must evolve from a mere RTI query to "constitutional litigation".

As the Bhagavad Geeta reminds us: "यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत। अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम्॥" – "Whenever righteousness decays and unrighteousness rises,  then I manifest Myself". In modern India, this restoration of 'dharma' must begin with us, the citizens, through RTI applications, public grievance documentation, and citizen-led archives. This RTI is not just a request; it is a "doctrinal intervention" , a blueprint for reform that demands explanation and propels constitutional evolution. The Supreme Court, as Ratnakar asserts, does not sit above the Constitution, but lives within it, and so must its procedures.