Have the Judiciary’s Decisions in Recent Years Led to a Decline in Democracy’s Trust in the Judicial System?
In 2025, public trust in the judicial system has reached a critical inflection point across democracies. Courts remain pillars of constitutional governance, yet their moral authority increasingly stands questioned. High-profile polarized rulings, massive case backlogs, and the growing perception of political entanglement have produced a global legitimacy crisis.
This erosion is not merely about disagreement with outcomes—it reflects deeper anxieties about fairness, accessibility, ethics, and whether courts still operate above political power.
The Global Crisis of Confidence
Across major democracies, public confidence has fallen to historic lows.
United States
Public confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court dropped from nearly 70% in 2019 to about 35% in 2024, with only a marginal recovery in 2025. The divide is sharply partisan: after abortion and presidential-immunity rulings, Democratic trust fell below 25%, while Republican confidence rose above 70%. The Court is increasingly seen not as an impartial umpire, but as an ideological battlefield.
India
India faces a twin crisis of pendency and inaccessibility. By 2025, over 45 million cases were pending across courts. At current disposal rates, clearing the backlog would take centuries. This systemic paralysis has pushed citizens to describe the judiciary as remote, elitist, and unreachable—fueling calls for alternative justice systems and deep dissatisfaction with constitutional remedies.
Europe
Although trust remains comparatively higher, even European courts face resistance. In 2025, nine European states publicly questioned rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on migration and deportation, igniting debates on whether judicial authority has begun to override democratic consent.
Why Trust Is Eroding
Public trust in courts has three layers:
-
Outcome acceptance – agreement with the verdict
-
Procedural legitimacy – belief that the process was fair
-
Institutional faith – confidence that courts are ethical, independent, and competent
Today, the third layer is weakening.
1. Perception of Political Alignment
Repeated ideological splits on high-impact cases have branded courts as partisan actors. Once citizens believe judgments reflect political loyalties rather than constitutional interpretation, even correct rulings lose moral authority.
2. Instability of Legal Standards
Frequent reversals of precedent—especially without consistent doctrine—make the law appear hostage to power rather than principle. The rule of law begins to resemble rule by whoever currently controls appointments.
3. Transparency Deficit
Complex judgments, delayed hearings, inaccessible language, and opaque processes estrange the public. Courts are seen as closed institutions speaking only to insiders.
4. Ethical Vulnerability
Post-retirement appointments, unclear recusal norms, and allegations of judicial misconduct—whether proven or not—create a corrosive narrative of compromised independence.
5. Judicialization of Politics
As legislatures avoid controversial issues, courts increasingly decide matters of culture, religion, elections, and national identity. While constitutionally necessary, this expands the judiciary into political terrain where neutrality is constantly doubted.
India: A Case Study in Trust Depletion
Despite landmark judgments safeguarding liberties, India’s judiciary faces acute scrutiny.
Public Confidence Indicators
Surveys show nearly half the population expressing serious trust deficits. Delays, high litigation costs, and inconsistent application of precedent are cited as core grievances. Even the Supreme Court has warned that disregard for settled law turns litigation into a “gamble,” eroding certainty.
Controversial Trends (2020–2025)
-
Bail denials in politically sensitive cases resulting in years of undertrial detention
-
Limited disclosures in political-funding cases
-
Reluctance to order independent probes in high-profile corporate or governmental matters
-
Rejection of full electoral verification safeguards
-
Concentration of case-allocation power in the Chief Justice
These decisions, taken together, have fostered a belief that dissenters are treated more harshly than the powerful.
Not All Is Negative
The judiciary has also delivered historic positives:
-
Striking down unconstitutional electoral mechanisms
-
Expanding digital access, live-streaming, and transparency
-
Strengthening free-speech protections
-
Mandating disclosures and civil-liberty safeguards
Yet these are routinely overshadowed by delays—dozens of constitutional cases remain unheard for years—and by avoidance of politically sensitive challenges.
Why This Matters for Democracy
When courts lose legitimacy:
-
Citizens disengage from civic processes
-
Executives face fewer constraints
-
Compliance with law weakens
-
Informal or extrajudicial justice rises
This creates a vicious cycle: distrust weakens the judiciary, which weakens democracy itself.
Rebuilding Trust Without Weakening Independence
Trust cannot be rebuilt through popularity—it must be earned through structure.
Essential reforms include:
-
Transparent roster and bench-allocation systems
-
Independent judicial ethics commissions
-
Mandatory asset disclosures
-
Faster case disposal through technology and staffing
-
Clearer, citizen-friendly reasoning in judgments
-
Protection of judges from political intimidation
Yes—judicial decisions in recent years have contributed to the decline of democratic trust in the judiciary. Not because courts have failed to defend the Constitution, but because their functioning increasingly appears opaque, inconsistent, inaccessible, and politically vulnerable.
A judiciary that cannot command public faith cannot effectively protect democracy.
Restoring trust requires not louder judgments—but cleaner institutions.
Contributed By: Ajay Gautam Advocate: Lawyer / Author / Columnist
