For the five years the judicial system was being used as an extended arm of the executive and not as a third independent wing as envisaged in the constitution. It continued to endorse and justify every action by the executive including detention of social activists under the sedition act for their refusal to accept the government prescribed actions. The executive had not only detained demonstrators who were protesting against changes in citizen’s act through amendments but also had charged them under the sedition act. Even the supreme judicial authority justified and endorsed the actions but added comments that use of act for detention was justified.

Even in the era before, during and the post period of the emergency rule, the prime minister had merely sought the permission of the Supreme Court to continue holding her office while she fought her legal battle against the Allahabad high Courts’ single judge verdict holding her election as illegal as it was in violation of certain legal activities. Her argument was that no legality prohibited her from holding her office till the final verdict by the Supreme Court. Resigning from the post was a mere formality and not enjoined by the legal provisions.

The judiciary and the executive had frowned upon misuse of various detention laws to hold individuals in detention for the specified periods without seeking the permission prior to and during the detention period of any court. But the Supreme Court approved in 2020 detention of demonstrators in January under the sedition act provisions.

Now only the Supreme Court frowned over the use of sedition act for detaining persons for merely holding and expressing view differing from views of the regime or the ruling ensemble. The Chennai high court even commented against the executive for shortfall in supply of oxygen to the patients suffering from the positive impact of the corona infections. May be the executive could not convince the judiciary of real constraining causes leading to shortfall particularly due to sudden and unperceived increase in multifold demand.

May be the remarks were in overzealous attitude to prove distance with the executive wing and thus establish independence of judiciary but for masses it is a welcome sign of the turning tide after five years of current flowing in opposite direction. The Prime Minister had not openly expressed desire.

The character and usage of every institute ultimately depends on its commanding individual. Indian Parliament was a great institute standing out above all comparable institutes. It began to change from 1986 after the any defection law was enacted and adopted. The enactment was hailed as a great piece of law to ensure morality in politics. Rarely was it realized that it converted the process of evaluation of morality in mathematical terms. If 33 percent defect it become immoral but addition of one more converts it into an act of morality and acceptable.

But no one noticed that the enactment had converted the character of institute. It remained no more a forum for free and honest debate in which participants tell what their honest opinion is.
Instead every one said what the party wanted the member to express. The Party whips held the power to ensure disqualification from membership for violation of the party discipline. The enactment ended the free and honest debates as fear of disqualification hanged on every head. Before the enactment newspapers were giving detailed coverage for every member was free and had courage to express his true opinion. Now member was giving vent to only what their party whip expected each one of them to rattle. The state legislatures were turned to be even more tiresome and expressions were only monologue. No wonder the parliament debates did not remain to be interesting or cause of thrilling events.

In last seven years no one showed interest in parliament proceedings though the constitution had provided it a pride place as one of three independent and autonomous wings of Indian parliamentary system. The judicial system regained its lost position to show the turning tide. The Parliament continues to be subservient institute to justify claim by the ruling party that it functions as autonomous body.

For the Executive wing, the council of ministers is expected to function as main and powerful transformer for collection of ideas and converting them to sources of benefit to masses. The Prime Minister sought to become the sole transformer and had reduced stature and authority for his ministers as his formation indicated in 2014. But ministers were apparently acting at the behest of other more powerful body was apparent. The Prime Minister did not trust them to induct them in his inner circles nor could he drive them to implement his directives. He did not trust them was apparent from the processes in the more important and far reaching decisions like the midnight air strike, demonetization and the lock down nor could he inspire his colleague to implement his most ambitious idea of training young in variety of skills to enable them to get employment in other countries suffering the acute shortages of skilled hands due to growing old age problems of their work forces.

His approach and his responses brought the economy in unchangeable reversal to move from plus 8.26 per cent in mid 2015 to minus 7.30 in mid 2021. The reversal trend was inherent in his functioning but no minister dared to point it out to him privately or publicly at the risk of departing away from his proximity as his minister. In a way they proved him right in reducing them to be political dwarfs. Yet he could not stop the tide to turn away from him. The judicial system could sense it as reversal of its role suggests.