Executive exerts influence over the judiciary including High Courts and Supreme Court through a variety of mechanisms, ranging from the appointment of judges to the shaping of judicial decisions and the allocation of resources. While the judiciary is intended to operate independently of executive interference, the reality often involves complex interactions between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

In this essay, we will explore how executive manipulates and controls the judiciary, examining both overt and subtle forms of influence and their implications for judicial independence and the rule of law.

One of the most direct ways in which executive controls the courts is through the transfer, appointment and confirmation process for judges. In many legal systems, including those with a separation of powers, the executive branch plays a central role in nominating and appointing judges to the highest court. By selecting individuals who align with their political ideology or agenda, executive can exert significant influence over the composition of the court and its future decisions.

This process allows executive to shape the judiciary in a manner that reflects their policy preferences and ensures a degree of ideological alignment with the ruling party.

Furthermore, executive may seek to control the highest court by manipulating the judicial nomination process to exclude or marginalize individuals perceived as politically independent or opposed to the executive's agenda. Through tactics such as vetting candidates based on their political affiliations, judicial philosophy, or loyalty to the ruling party, executive can stack the court with judges who are predisposed to favouring executive interests over broader considerations of justice and the rule of law.

This politicization of the judiciary undermines public trust in the independence and impartiality of the court, eroding its legitimacy as a check on executive power.

In addition to the appointment of judges, executive may exert control over the highest court through indirect means, such as influencing the court's docket or agenda-setting process. By prioritizing certain cases over others or strategically timing the adjudication of controversial issues, executive can shape the legal landscape and pre-empt challenges to their authority or policies.

This manipulation of the judicial agenda allows executive to control the narrative surrounding key legal issues and limit the scope of judicial review, thereby consolidating their power and insulating themselves from legal accountability.

Moreover, executive may seek to control the highest court through budgetary and resource allocation decisions. By withholding funding or resources from the judiciary, executive can undermine the court's capacity to perform its functions effectively and independently.

This tactic not only impedes the administration of justice but also serves as a form of indirect pressure on judges to align with executive interests in order to secure necessary resources for the court. In this way, executive can leverage their control over the purse strings to influence the behaviour and decisions of the judiciary, compromising its autonomy and integrity.

Furthermore, executive may attempt to manipulate the highest court through public relations campaigns, media influence, and public opinion manipulation. By shaping public perceptions of the judiciary and framing legal issues in a manner favourable to their interests, executive can exert indirect pressure on judges to rule in accordance with prevailing political sentiments or risk facing public backlash.

Through tactics such as discrediting dissenting opinions, vilifying judicial adversaries, or fostering distrust in the judicial system, executive can undermine the legitimacy and authority of the court, thereby weakening its ability to serve as an impartial arbiter of the law.

Executive may seek to control the highest court through legislative measures aimed at curbing judicial independence or limiting the scope of judicial review. By enacting laws that restrict the jurisdiction of the court, impose procedural barriers to legal challenges, or undermine judicial authority, executive can effectively neutralize the judiciary as a check on their power.

Sometimes investigative agencies or departments under the executive may target the judiciary by harassing them or their family members both during service and after retirement for not toeing the executive line while passing judicial orders. In fact, some members of the judiciary might be found to be toeing the executive line while passing judicial orders for their personal benefit and career advancement or due to political and ideological symmetry.

This erosion of judicial independence not only undermines the separation of powers but also threatens the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law, paving the way for unchecked executive tyranny and authoritarianism.

Executives may sometimes attempt to control the highest court by manipulating public opinion through scandalous news about judges and airing their personal or private lives. This strategy, often referred to as character assassination or smear campaigns, aims to undermine the credibility and impartiality of judges, thereby weakening public trust in the judiciary and facilitating executive influence over judicial decision-making.

One of the ways the executives seek to control the highest court is by orchestrating or exploiting scandals involving judges, whether real or fabricated. By strategically leaking damaging information or insinuating wrongdoing by judges, executives can tarnish their reputations and cast doubt on their integrity and impartiality. These scandals may range from allegations of corruption, misconduct, or bias to sensationalized stories about judges' personal or private lives, including extramarital affairs, financial impropriety, or substance abuse. By sensationalizing such allegations through media channels sympathetic to the executive, executives can manipulate public opinion and exert indirect pressure on judges to align with executive interests or risk facing public condemnation and professional repercussions.

Moreover, executives may seek to control the highest court by selectively leaking or disclosing confidential information about judges, such as internal deliberations, private communications, or sensitive personal details. By exploiting vulnerabilities or compromising information about judges, executives can coerce or blackmail them into compliance with executive directives or risk public exposure and humiliation. This tactic not only undermines judicial independence and integrity but also violates judges' right to privacy and dignity, eroding public trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.

Furthermore, executives may attempt to control the highest court by cultivating relationships with media outlets and journalists sympathetic to their interests, thereby influencing the narrative surrounding judicial affairs and shaping public perceptions of judges. By disseminating biased or misleading information about judges through friendly media channels, executives can manipulate public opinion and rally support for their agenda, including efforts to discredit or undermine the judiciary as an independent check on executive power. This collusion between executive and media stakeholders undermines the principles of press freedom, journalistic integrity, and democratic accountability, posing a grave threat to judicial independence and the rule of law.

Additionally, executives may exploit the prevalence of social media and digital platforms to disseminate defamatory or inflammatory content about judges, including false rumours, doctored images, or malicious attacks by anonymous users. By leveraging the viral nature of social media, executives can amplify negative narratives about judges, incite public outrage, and create a hostile environment conducive to executive intervention or manipulation of the judiciary. This online harassment and cyber bullying not only jeopardize judges' safety and well-being but also undermine their ability to perform their duties impartially and effectively in the face of public scrutiny and intimidation.

In response to these threats to judicial independence and integrity, it is imperative to implement safeguards and countermeasures to protect judges from executive manipulation and control. First and foremost, judicial independence must be enshrined in law and upheld as a fundamental principle of democratic governance, free from executive interference or intimidation. Efforts to safeguard judicial independence should include measures to protect judges from external pressure, ensure their security and well-being, and preserve their autonomy and impartiality in the performance of their duties.

Furthermore, transparency and accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to promote public trust in the judiciary and combat misinformation and propaganda spread by executive. This includes enhancing access to judicial proceedings and decisions, promoting open dialogue and public engagement on judicial matters, and holding the executive accountable for any attempts to undermine judicial independence or integrity. Additionally, robust protections for freedom of expression, press freedom, and digital rights are essential to safeguarding judicial independence and preventing executive censorship or manipulation of the media.

Moreover, international and regional human rights mechanisms play a crucial role in monitoring and addressing threats to judicial independence and integrity, including executive manipulation and control of the highest court. By holding executives accountable for violations of judicial independence and ensuring effective remedies for victims of executive interference or intimidation, these mechanisms help safeguard the rule of law and democratic governance worldwide. Through collaborative efforts between states, civil society organizations, and international stakeholders, we can work to uphold the principles of judicial independence, protect judges from executive manipulation and control, and preserve the integrity and legitimacy of the judiciary as a cornerstone of democratic society.

In conclusion, executives manipulate and control the highest court of the state through a variety of mechanisms, including the appointment of judges, manipulation of the judicial agenda, budgetary constraints, public relations tactics, and legislative measures. These efforts to influence the judiciary undermine its independence, integrity, and ability to serve as a check on executive power, posing a grave threat to the rule of law and democratic governance.

In order to safeguard judicial independence and preserve the integrity of the judiciary, it is imperative to uphold the principles of separation of powers, judicial autonomy, and constitutionalism, and to remain vigilant in the face of attempts by the executive to undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565