Pillars & People: Why Every Pillar of India’s Democracy Deserves Our Scrutiny
Democracy is not a museum where relics of freedom are kept under glass; it is a living, breathing experiment in power-sharing, accountability, and public courage.
In India, we often speak of the “four pillars of democracy”, the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Media. Each is entrusted with a distinctive role, and each must be strong enough to hold the others to account. Yet, habit and fear have made public critique uneven. We target the legislature and the executive with familiar outrage, while the judiciary and the media are often granted sanctuary, insulated by reverence, legal complexity, or the comforting myth that they are beyond reproach. This blog argues that a robust democracy requires fearless, informed criticism of all four pillars. Critique is not contempt; it is care in action.
“A democracy that fears critique chooses comfort over courage; and comfort is an enemy that quietly erodes liberty.” ~ Adarsh Singh
We should examine each pillar in turn:
What it should do, how it often fails, where citizens tend to direct their criticism (and why), and, most importantly, how we can correct course.
This is not an exercise in cynicism. It is a call to civic maturity: to judge, to debate, to demand, and to repair.
The Legislature: Voice, Representation, and the Price of Performance
The ideal
The legislature is the closest institutional expression of popular will. It debates policies, writes laws, and, in many democracies, serves as the primary check on the executive. A functioning legislature keeps government accountable, represents diverse interests, crafts long-term policy, and gives citizens a structured means to influence public life.
The reality
In practice, legislatures can degenerate into arenas of posturing and short-termism. Parliamentary debates may be dominated by theatrics rather than policy, party whips can suppress independent thought, and populist measures may override careful lawmaking. The constant electoral treadmill pushes representatives to seek immediate rewards for supporters rather than long-term national goods. At the same time, the legislative process can be opaque, bills rushed, committees bypassed, and detailed scrutiny sidelined.
Where citizens focus their anger
It is unsurprising that citizens often place disproportionate blame on parliament and assemblies. They are visible, they make the laws we live under, and elections give voters a direct lever to remove or reward legislators. When laws are ill-conceived or when corruption scandals break, the legislature is the natural target.
Points of critique and necessary reforms
Transparency and deliberation: Strengthen committee scrutiny. Committees should be the working heart of legislation, providing expert hearings, public consultations, and reasoned amendments rather than letting the calendar and majority decide outcomes.
Parliamentary ethics and accountability: Enforce tighter disclosure norms for assets, conflicts, and outside income. Independent ethics commissions could investigate misconduct without political interference.
Electoral reform: Curb the influence of money and muscle by reforming campaign finance, tightening criminal-convict disqualifications, and empowering small-donor public financing pilots.
Civic engagement: Use deliberative democracy tools, citizens’ juries, participatory budgeting experiments, and easier mechanisms for petitions and referendums at local levels.
If the legislature is the voice of the people, it must speak with clarity, integrity, and humility. Citizens have a right, and duty, to demand all three.
The Executive: Power, Implementation, and the Temptations of Centralization
The ideal
The executive translates laws into action. It manages the bureaucracy, delivers services, and secures the nation. Robust executives are decisive but constrained by law and democratic oversight.
The reality
Executives can be both engines of progress and engines of imbalance. Effective leadership requires decisiveness; yet too much concentration of power can weaken checks, sideline institutions, and create atmospheres where dissent is discouraged. The expansion of the executive authority, whether through ordinance-making, use of national security laws, or control over appointments, can shift the balance away from democratic oversight.
Why citizens often blame the executive heavily
The executive’s actions are immediately felt: taxes collected, schools run, infrastructure built (or not built), rights enforced (or curtailed). Failures in service delivery or perceived overreach provoke visible frustration. Media and civil society often shine their lights here because the executive is the machinery citizens engage with regularly.
Points of critique and necessary reforms
Decentralization and subsidiarity: Power should be pushed down to local governments wherever feasible. Local governments must be empowered with finance, personnel, and decision-making autonomy.
Administrative transparency: Clearer rules for appointments and promotions in the bureaucracy reduce patronage. Public performance metrics for departments and chief secretaries can encourage accountability.
Checks on emergency powers: Legal boundaries around emergency ordinances and security laws should be tightened, with proactive legislative review and sunset clauses.
Citizen oversight mechanisms: Independent ombudsmen, stronger Right to Information (RTI) enforcement, and citizen charters for public services can create durable pressure for better governance.
The executive is the instrument of governance. Citizens must ensure it remains a disciplined instrument, not an unbridled force.
The Judiciary: Interpreter of Law, Guardian of Rights, and the Perils of Exceptionalism
The ideal
A free and independent judiciary protects the Constitution, adjudicates disputes, and safeguards individual rights against majoritarian tyranny. Judges must be impartial, fearless, and free from political or financial influence. The judiciary’s moral authority depends on its competence, impartiality, and procedural fairness.
The paradox of reverence
The judiciary is often held above reproach. This reverence stems from a legitimate desire to preserve judicial independence: judges must be insulated from partisan retaliation to rule against the powerful. Yet reverence can mutate into exceptionalism, a reluctance to subject judges or judicial institutions to the same scrutiny we apply to politicians or journalists. The result is a blind spot in public accountability.
Where critique is uncomfortable, but necessary
Critiquing the judiciary does not mean undermining the rule of law. Instead, it means insisting that judges and courts meet high standards of professionalism, transparency, and accountability. Problems exist: delays that deny justice, opaque appointment processes that invite allegations of favoritism, occasional judicial overreach when courts step into policy terrain better suited for elected bodies, and an uneven application of rights.
Caution and clarity in criticism
When citizens question judicial conduct, the goals must be: preserve independence while improving accountability; defend fair process while preventing unaccountable privilege; insist on access while resisting politicization.
Points of critique and necessary reforms
Transparent appointments and judicial diversity: While independence is paramount, the process of selecting judges should be more transparent and inclusive. Clear criteria, published shortlists, and independent evaluation bodies can reduce perceptions of insider capture.
Performance and accountability measures: Simple reforms, timely reasons for judgments, better court management to reduce backlog, digitization of records, and publication of judicial performance statistics, can improve trust without undermining judicial autonomy.
Judicial ethics and complaint mechanisms: An independent, peer-reviewed and transparent system for handling credible allegations against judges (for corruption or misconduct) is necessary. It should protect frivolous complaints while enabling redress of serious issues.
Limits to judicial policymaking: Courts should be careful when directing complex policy matters that require technical expertise or political trade-offs. Courts can set legal parameters and protect rights, but they must exercise restraint when mandating policy prescriptions better left to legislatures and executives.
Access to justice for the marginalized: Legal aid systems must be strengthened; procedures simplified; small claims expedited. A justice system that works only for the privileged is a betrayal of its oath.
“We must revere the robe of justice, but not mistake the robe for infallibility.” ~ Adarsh Singh
The danger of polarization
One of the most corrosive trends is the tendency to weaponize the judiciary, celebrating judicial activism when verdicts align with one’s views and denouncing the same when they do not. Such selective reverence weakens legal norms and encourages politicization. Citizens must demand consistent standards of judicial behavior and temper both idolization and vilification with sober scrutiny.
The Media: Watchdog, Forum, and the Risk of Capture
The ideal
An independent media informs the public, investigates power, amplifies marginalized voices, and provides a forum for public debate. A vigorous press is indispensable for accountability.
The reality
The media landscape today is complex. The rise of 24/7 news cycles, social platforms, and concentrated ownership models has altered incentives. Sensationalism, infotainment, and the race for clicks undermine depth. Corporate interests and political alignments sometimes influence editorial choices. Misinformation spreads easily, eroding shared facts. At the same time, the media continues to perform heroic exposés, bring local injustices to light, and shape civic discourse.
Why media is often spared harsher critique
In many societies, journalists take real risks. Journalists’ safety concerns, prosecutions, or harassment create a climate where critiquing the press feels callous. Moreover, media institutions brandish the language of “free speech” and “press freedom” to resist regulation. While press freedom is vital, it cannot be a shield for negligence, bias, or predatory practices.
Points of critique and necessary reforms
Ownership transparency: Who owns what matters. Clear disclosure of ownership and conflicts of interest should be mandatory so audiences can evaluate potential biases.
Strengthen public-interest journalism: Public funding models (with firewall protections), support for local journalism, and grants for investigative reporting can counterbalance market pressures that favor sensationalism.
Ethics and self-regulation, plus enforcement: Codes of conduct help, but self-regulation must be backed by enforceable standards for corrections, retractions, and penalties for deliberate falsehoods. Independent press councils with real teeth, and independent representation, are essential.
Media literacy and pluralism: Citizens must be equipped to navigate information. Schools, civil society, and public campaigns should teach critical consumption of news, identifying bias and verifying sources.
Protect journalistic independence: Laws and norms must defend journalists against undue legal harassment (vexatious SLAPP suits), while ensuring that journalism does not become a free-for-all for defamation.
“True journalism is not the art of winning the news cycle; it is the craft of illuminating truth, even when that truth is inconvenient.” ~ Adarsh Singh
The challenge of digital platforms
Social media platforms amplify voices, and amplifies harms. Algorithms favor engagement, often promoting polarizing content. Democracies must demand platform accountability: transparency about recommendation algorithms, robust misinformation responses, and due process for content moderation. Regulation must avoid censorship, but allow democratic societies to set minimum standards for truthful public discourse.
Why Are Media and Judiciary Often Exempted from Brutal Public Scrutiny?
There are several reasons why public ire tends to focus on the legislature and executive while sparing the judiciary and media:
1. Complexity and Accessibility: Judicial reasoning and media ethics can be technically complex. Many citizens lack the time or tools to scrutinize them deeply, whereas executive actions like price hikes or service failures are tangible.
2. Deference and Mythmaking: Courts are clothed with moral authority. Media are presented as defenders of liberty. Reverence can translate to silence, even when institutions fall short.
3. Fear of Reprisal: Citizens and journalists may fear legal or extra-legal repercussions for criticizing powerful judges or media houses. This chilling effect reduces frank public debate.
4. Hero Narrative: When media or courts step in to rescue the powerless, they earn admiration. That goodwill can become a shield, discouraging critique even when mistakes occur.
5. Partisan Instrumentalization: Political actors often use the media and judiciary as strategic tools; hence, public critique is fragmented along partisan lines rather than principled lines.
But reverence must not become a silence that enables decay. Healthy democracy depends on a culture where every institution is answerable, without enabling mobs or undermining legitimate independence.
The Citizen’s Role: Courage, Critique, and Construction
Critique is civic nutrition
Parliament debates, court judgments, and editorial lines all shape the society we live in. Citizens must develop an appetite for reasoned critique.
This means:
Informed criticism: Critique grounded in evidence, not rumor. Read full judgments, follow legislative debates, and cross-verify news sources.
Institutional empathy: Recognize the constraints institutions operate under. Demand accountability, but understand context: scarcity of resources, constitutional limits, or genuine trade-offs.
Constructive alternatives: Critique should point to remedies. If you decry judicial delay, propose concrete administrative fixes; if you condemn media sensationalism, propose community funding models for quality journalism.
Tools of civic engagement
Use RTI requests to obtain facts and hold institutions to account.
Join or support independent watchdogs, legal aid organizations, and public-interest journalism.
Vote, yes, but also engage between elections through public consultations, town halls, and petition platforms.
Support media literacy campaigns and civic education in schools.
Use non-violent, lawful protest to draw attention to systemic failures.
Encourage transparency: demand online publishing of court orders, committee reports, and public utility performance metrics.
“Courageous citizenship is not loudness; it is consistency, the quiet insistence that institutions must live up to their promises.” ~ Adarsh Singh
The etiquette of critique
Critique must not degrade into personal attacks, conspiracy mongering, or incitement. Civility matters. When we critique a judge or a journalist, focus on actions and systems, not identities. Insist on corrections, not lynch mobs.
Repairing the Architecture: Practical Proposals for Systemic Health
Below are targeted reforms that, taken together, would fortify democratic resilience. They are pragmatic and avoid utopian leaps.
For the Legislature
Enforce strict parliamentary committee schedules and require compulsory publication of committee reports before final votes.
Mandate disclosure of legislators’ assets and business interests in searchable databases.
Pilot small-donor public financing schemes for elections.
For the Executive
Institutionalize sunset clauses for ordinances and require prior parliamentary oversight for significant national security expansions.
Strengthen the independence and transparency of appointment processes for constitutional bodies.
Expand devolution of funds and decision-making to local governments.
For the Judiciary
Introduce transparent criteria and published rationales for high judicial appointments, while preserving the essential independence of the bench.
Invest in court infrastructure and case-management technology to reduce backlogs and speed judgments.
Strengthen independent judicial accountability mechanisms that respect tenure but address corruption and misconduct credibly.
Mandate disclosure of Judges' assets and business interests in searchable databases.
For the Media
Require disclosure of media ownership and funding sources.
Create a public-interest journalism fund with strong editorial independence safeguards.
Empower an independent press council with enforcement authority over corrections and retractions.
Mandatory disclosure of assets of Journalists.
For Digital Platforms
Mandate transparency reports by platforms about content moderation and algorithmic amplification.
Create rapid-response mechanisms to tackle misinformation during elections and crises, while preserving free speech.
Each of these measures requires political will and civic pressure. None is magical on its own; together they build a lattice of accountability.
A Cultural Turn: From Idolization to Responsible Reverence
Institutions gain authority when citizens trust them. Restoring trust requires more than laws, it requires culture. We must cultivate a civic grammar that values:
Humility in power: Leaders and institutions that admit error and correct course win durable legitimacy.
Curiosity in citizens: Lifelong learning about how institutions work reduces facile cynicism and enlightens critique.
Pluralism in information: A media ecosystem that nourishes diverse voices resists capture by narrow interests.
Compassion in adversaries: Political opponents are not enemies; they are competitors in the democratic arena. Treating them as such prevents delegitimization spirals.
We must teach that reverence is not silence, and respect is not reverence. Reverence without scrutiny is hollow.
Hold Every Pillar to the Same Light
If democracy is a public trust, then every citizen is a trustee. That trust demands not passive worship but active stewardship. The legislature and the executive are rightly subject to robust public judgment because they directly wield state power. But the judiciary and the media, precisely because of their authority, must not be exempted from the same hard questions.
We must be willing to ask: Are judges accountable without fear? Is the press independent without being irresponsible? Is the executive restrained without being paralyzed? Does the legislature legislate for posterity and not merely for headlines? These are difficult questions, but the discomfort they produce is the engine of democratic repair.
The freedom to critique is the very oxygen of democracy. When citizens exercise that freedom with responsibility, informed, fearless, and constructive, institutions improve. When institutions accept critique with grace and act to reform themselves, they repay public trust.
“The health of a democracy is measured not by how loudly its pillars declare their virtue, but by how openly they accept correction.” ~ Adarsh Singh
Wed Sep 10, 2025
Launch your Graphy