How do Supreme Court decisions on bail in cases involving political activists affect public trust in the judiciary?

The Supreme Court’s decisions on granting or rejecting bail to political activists play a significant role in shaping public perception of the judiciary. In politically sensitive cases, these decisions are closely watched by the public, media, and civil society, as they are seen as a test of the judiciary’s independence and commitment to justice.

• Perception of Judicial Independence: When bail is denied to political activists, especially in cases seen as politically motivated, it can create doubts about whether the judiciary is acting independently or under external pressure.
• Fairness and Equality Before Law: Public trust is affected if there is a perception that political activists are treated differently from ordinary citizens. Consistency in applying legal principles on bail is crucial for maintaining faith in the system.
• Transparency and Reasoning: The way the Supreme Court explains its decisions—through detailed reasoning and adherence to established legal standards—can either strengthen or weaken public trust. Lack of transparency or perceived arbitrariness can erode confidence.
• Impact on Civil Liberties: Denial of bail in cases involving dissent or protest may be seen as curbing fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, leading to concerns about the judiciary’s role in protecting civil liberties.
• Media and Public Discourse: Media coverage and public debates around such cases amplify the impact of these decisions on society’s trust in the judiciary. High-profile cases often set precedents in the public mind about the judiciary’s stance on political freedoms.