India today is ostensibly a democracy; in practice, it is close to being an autocracy. Constitutional institutions, including the Election Commission, Supreme Court and Comptroller and Auditor General, have not lived up to expectations.

Dushyant Dave has appealed to the CJI to look into these matters, particularly the re-assignment of important cases, and intervene.

The president embodies the sovereignty of the people of India and the State as a whole. According to convention, the president should lead all formal, ceremonial, and solemn occasions. But the inauguration of parliament was tailor-made to show the prime minister as the head of the state and the BJP as the sole representative of the people of India.

The law laid down by the Supreme Court binds the collegium as well. Yet, the appointment and transfer of judges to the high courts and Supreme Court have not been strictly in terms of that law.

Without PILs, corruption, nepotism and bias in executive actions will remain unchallenged. Courts must maintain a constant vigil, otherwise, all rights secured to citizens under our constitution will become worthless.

India's constitutional courts were put in place to protect the rights of all, especially those not in the majority. The judiciary had a great opportunity to do just that but squandered it.

The president of the Supreme Court Bar Association pens a heartfelt, personal tribute to the former attorney general of India.

One can only hope that every tear shed by every citizen in the last 72 hours is acknowledged by those in power and people are held accountable and punished for their failures.

People are hungry, penniless and tired. Only the Armed Forces have the dedication and skill required to tackle this challenge.

Cases with political overtones and far-reaching consequences for the nation have been systematically assigned to benches of “preference”.

The last few years of the functioning of collegiums across high courts and the Supreme Court indicates that more often than not, selection of judges to the higher judiciary has been made on a ‘reciprocity’ basis.

It is well settled that extraordinary facts demand extraordinary solutions. The judiciary must tune itself to think out of the box to meet with any situation.

The judgment makes it clear that the learned judge was bent upon acquitting the accused by totally disregarding the evidence – oral and documentary – placed before him.

The decision announced in Paris on April 10, 2015 by a government that promised to "eradicate all corruption" violated every safeguard of the Defence Procurement Procedure 2013.

Does this amount to mutiny, as the Army Act defines it, in so far as their effort “endeavours to seduce any person in the military, naval or air forces, of India from his duty or allegiance to the Union”?

The Chief Justice of India's actions reflect a complete neglect of the rule of law and have put the acceptability and respect the highest court of justice commands in jeopardy.

Judges whose rulings have gone against the BJP and its leaders are discovering that their prospects for advancement have been blocked.

Recent events show that Babasaheb Ambedkar’s fears of democracy giving way to dictatorship if the authority of its leaders remains unchecked may not have been unfounded.

Was the Supreme Court's judgement on January 11 in the Sahara-Birla papers case truly free from bias?