Raids, Robes, and the Republic: When Justice Looks Like Politics

From opaque collegium decisions to unchecked enforcement agencies, India risks repeating the mistakes of Washington, Colombo, and Islamabad unless urgent reforms build trust, fairness, and independence into its institutions.

By P SESH KUMAR

NEW DELHI, August 25, 2025 — The news that the FBI raided John Bolton’s Maryland home jolted many Americans. A raid on a former national security adviser — one who had famously broken with Donald Trump — sounded more like something from South Asia than from Washington. For Indians, it resonated too closely: the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the CBI knocking on the doors of opposition leaders has become an almost a monthly if not weekly ritual.

The pattern is disturbingly global. In Sri Lanka, a former president is behind bars. In Pakistan, Imran Khan languishes in jail. In Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina fled amid violent protests, silenced by a media ban. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte faces an ICC case, while in Indonesia, activists are muzzled under the guise of fiscal reforms.

Each of these may have legal merit. Yet none can escape the criticism that prosecutions of political opponents are often witch-hunts cloaked as accountability.

America’s Partisan Bench

Bolton’s raid is only one side of the American story. The other is a Supreme Court increasingly seen as an extension of Trump’s politics. With three appointees — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett — cementing a 6–3 conservative majority, the Court has been accused of bending toward the appointing authority.

Recent rulings illustrate the trend. The Court allowed the Trump administration to slash nearly $800 million from NIH diversity grants, a decision critics decried as ideological overreach delivered via the shadow docket.

It clipped nationwide injunctions that once checked Trump’s immigration bans. It narrowed challenges to his attempt to deny birthright citizenship. Fraud and financial misconduct cases involving Trump, meanwhile, have found a strangely forgiving judiciary.

Here lies the paradox of the US system: life tenure was meant to shield judges from politics. Instead, it has entrenched ideological alignments that survive presidents and outlast elections. The perception of partisanship is corrosive, and in law, perception matters almost as much as reality.

Britain’s Arm’s-Length Shield

Contrast this with the UK Since the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, the Judicial Appointments Commission has managed recruitment for the Supreme Court and higher judiciary. Ministers have little say beyond rubber-stamping. Judges are chosen through competitive processes, with mandatory retirement curbing lifetime entrenchment.

The system is not perfect. Critics complain of sluggish selections, elitism and slow progress on diversity. But one thing it does not suffer from is the perception that judges are stooges of the government of the day. In an age when faith in institutions is waning, that insulation is no small asset.

India’s Two-Pronged Crisis

India lies uneasily between the US and the UK On one side, it faces charges of politically driven prosecutions. The ED and CBI, once respected, now stand accused of functioning like partisan weapons. Cases against Arvind Kejriwal, Rahul and Sonia Gandhi, Hemant Soren, Satyendra Jain, Siddaramaiah, D.K. Shiva Kumar and Manish Sisodia dominate headlines. Almost every opposition party has a leader in custody or under investigation. Tellingly, many probes melt away once leaders cross over to the ruling party — the so-called “washing machine effect.”

On the other side lies the judiciary itself. The Supreme Court’s Collegium system was crafted to shield appointments from the executive. In practice, it has become synonymous with secrecy and nepotism. Sons, nephews and relatives of judges regularly rise through the ranks. Proposals for an All India Judicial Service, which would allow open competition like the civil services, have not been viewed favourably by the higher judiciary. Independence has been preserved, but legitimacy is being squandered.

South Asia’s Mirror

The problem is not India’s alone. A quick comparison is instructive.

India: opposition leaders targeted by ED and CBI, with probes vanishing after defections.

Pakistan: Imran Khan jailed under corruption charges, NAB accused of political bias.

Sri Lanka: former President Wickremesinghe arrested, sparking fears of vendetta.

Bangladesh: Sheikh Hasina driven into exile, her speeches banned on air.

Philippines: Duterte in the ICC dock, supporters alleging selective justice.

Indonesia: activists silenced through budgetary crackdowns and protest bans.

The thread binding them all is clear: law is weaponised not only to fight corruption, but to tilt political playing fields.

Why Perception Matters

The Bolton raid reminds us of a crucial democratic truth: the referee matters more than the rulebook. If judges are seen as partisan, if prosecutors are seen as political, if agencies are seen as vengeful, the entire system loses credibility. Justice not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done— Lord Hewart, R v Sussex Justices (1924)

In the US, the Court looks partisan. In the UK, it looks insulated. In India, it looks opaque. None of these are comfortable places for a democracy to be.

What India Should Aspire

Can India copy-paste another country’s model? Or can it learn? The Collegium must be opened up: reasons for selections and transfers should be published; timelines enforced; diversity benchmarks set; and a limited All India Judicial Service introduced to break dynasties. Enforcement agencies must be made accountable to Parliament or an independent ombudsman, with their work audited for consistency. Post-retirement cooling-off rules should curb judges walking into political sinecures. Too much to expect- many would say.

What India must avoid is the worst of both worlds: American-style ideological capture and South Asian-style political vendetta. Without reform, that is precisely where it is heading.

From Washington to Colombo, Islamabad to Dhaka, Manila to Jakarta, the story is depressingly similar: courts and agencies become weapons in political battles. India, with its democratic legacy and constitutional safeguards, should stand apart. Instead, it risks sliding into the same narrative.

The lesson is urgent: independence is not enough. Transparency, fairness and trust must be built into every process. Only then will India’s judiciary and enforcement agencies be seen for what they ought to be — guardians of the republic, not pawns in its politics.

(This is an opinion piece, and views expressed are those of the author only)

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author