The Best IAS / UPSC Coaching Prashikshan IAS! | UPCS / IAS & State PCS CSAT Reasoning New Batch Starting from 11 Aug 2025, Enroll Now! | UPSC General Studies Coaching Online/Hybrid/Offline Course Starting from 11 Aug 2025, Few Seats Left! Special Discounts Available, Call Us on 9717323955 / 7388368910| Admissions Open for Academic Year 2025-26.
Login

Our courts affirm that we are only like this

Synopsis: The Supreme Court of India upheld the precedence of dignity over the right to free speech. This ruling was made during a case concerning jokes related to disability. Cartoonist Hemant Malviya was granted protection after ridiculing the Prime Minister and the RSS. The court condemned Malviya’s cartoon as lacking dignity. India’s stance contrasts with countries that have more permissive satire regulations. This illustrates a worldwide movement against sarcasm.

Context: The colloquial Indian phrase, “we’re like this only,” is a loaded statement, simultaneously an admission of flaws, a justification for inaction, and a fatalistic acceptance of the status quo. The fictional article, titled “Our courts confirm we’re like this only,” suggests a sobering reality: that the judiciary, the very institution meant to be the vanguard of reform and the ultimate arbiter of law, is now increasingly seen as a mirror reflecting our society’s ingrained habits rather than a hammer to reshape them. This essay explores the multi-dimensional implications of this judicial reflection, examining its impact on governance, economic development, social justice, and the sanctity of the rule of law.

The Socio-Legal Dimension: The Pragmatic Court vs. The Ideal Court

At its core, the issue highlights a growing chasm between the law in letter and the law in practice. The Indian judiciary has a celebrated history of activism, from expanding fundamental rights to enforcing environmental regulations. However, the trend alluded to in the article points towards a form of “judicial realism” that can be deeply problematic. When courts, in their wisdom, deliver judgments that accommodate systemic inefficiencies, minor corrupt practices, or a casual disregard for procedure, they may be acting pragmatically. For instance, a ruling that regularises an unauthorised construction citing the “lived reality” of the occupants or overlooks procedural lapses in a government tender to expedite a public project, essentially validates the initial transgression.

This approach confirms that the system is indeed broken and that circumventing it is a quasi-legitimate survival strategy. While born of an intent to deliver substantive justice, this path risks institutionalising the very maladies it seeks to bypass. It sends a message that rules are not sacrosanct but negotiable, reinforcing the societal belief that “we’re like this only.”

The Economic Dimension: Ease of Doing Business or Ease of Bending Rules?

From an economic perspective, as the article’s source suggests, this judicial trend is a double-edged sword. On one hand, a rigid, uncompromising judiciary could stifle economic activity, entangling businesses in endless litigation over minor compliance issues—a return to the dreaded “inspector raj.” A pragmatic court that understands ground realities might appear to promote the Ease of Doing Business.

However, the long-term consequences are perilous. This perceived flexibility breeds uncertainty and undermines institutional credibility. For foreign investors and ethical domestic businesses, a predictable legal framework is paramount. When court judgments suggest that contracts can be interpreted loosely or regulatory standards are malleable, it discourages long-term, high-value investment. It fosters a business culture where success depends not on innovation and efficiency, but on navigating a complex web of exceptions and informal arrangements. This ultimately harms economic dynamism by rewarding rule-benders over rule-followers.

The Governance and Ethical Dimension

This judicial trend has profound implications for governance. When the judiciary provides a “safety valve” for administrative failures, it reduces the pressure on the executive and legislature to undertake fundamental reforms. If courts find a way to make a flawed system work, why should the government invest political capital in fixing it? This creates a cycle of complacency where poor governance is tacitly accepted and perpetuated by all arms of the state.

Ethically, this normalisation of deviance leads to a gradual erosion of constitutional morality. It blurs the line between what is legal and what is simply “accepted practice,” weakening the citizen’s faith in the rule of law. The expectation of justice shifts from a right guaranteed by a robust system to a favour granted by a lenient judge. This is a dangerous path that can lead from a state governed by laws to one governed by discretion.

Conclusion: A Mirror for Introspection

The assertion that “our courts confirm we’re like this only” is a stark commentary on the state of the nation. It suggests that the judiciary, in its attempt to be pragmatic, is holding up a mirror to our collective societal and administrative failings. While judicial realism has its place, it must not become an excuse for a retreat from the judiciary’s primary role as the guardian of the Constitution and the enforcer of the rule of law.

The reflection in this mirror should not be met with a shrug of resignation. Instead, it must serve as a call to action for the legislature to create simpler laws, for the executive to ensure cleaner implementation, and for society to cultivate a culture of integrity. The ultimate challenge is not for the courts to stop reflecting reality, but for society to change the reality that is being reflected. The future of India as a robust, rule-based democracy depends on our collective refusal to accept that “we’re like this only.”

UPSC mains exam question based on the provided topic:

 GS Paper 2: Structure, organization, and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary; Separation of powers between various organs; Important aspects of governance, transparency, and accountability.
 GS Paper 3: Indian Economy and issues relating to planning, mobilization of resources, growth, development, Ease of Doing Business.
GS Paper 4: Probity in Governance; Philosophical basis of governance and probity; Codes of Ethics.
Question 1. The assertion that “our courts confirm we’re like this only” suggests a shift towards judicial realism. Critically examine how this trend, while seemingly pragmatic, can undermine the rule of law and perpetuate a governance deficit in the long run. (12.5 Marks, 200 words)
Question 2. Judicial decisions that accommodate systemic inefficiencies are often seen as a pragmatic approach to foster ‘Ease of Doing Business’. Discuss how this approach is a double-edged sword, potentially damaging long-term investor confidence and an ethical business environment. (12.5 Marks, 200 words)
(Source- Economic Times)

Would you like to start learning with us?​

+91 7388368910

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prashikshan IAS is a Institution which comes under Sajiteria Educational Private Limited, with a motive- “REVA” (Redefining Education Via Academy), where we want to serve, not only in suburbs / hubs, but also in the areas where we have lots and lots of students.

Quick Links

Useful Link

Our Centers

  • Jaunpur, UP

137/B – MCR Tower – 2 Gurudwara Road, Sipah Rd, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh 222001

  • Laxmi Nagar, Delhi NCR

Prashikshan IAS – U-112-A/B, 2nd Floor, Near Laxmi Nagar Metro Gate 3, Delhi 110092

Copyright by Prashikshan IAS All rights reserved.

Facebook-f Telegram-plane Instagram Youtube