Changing The Symbols But Not The Colonial Laws

The recent changes to the Lady Justice statue, unveiled by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, are more symbolic than meaningful. Removing the blindfold, replacing the sword with the Constitution, and dressing her in a saree aim to shed colonial symbols, but the real issues in India’s judiciary remain. With over 40 million pending cases and outdated colonial laws like the UAPA still in use, the system struggles with accessibility and delays. Despite calls for reforms, like regional Supreme Court benches, the judiciary resists change, and true progress in delivering justice remains slow and limited to surface-level updates.

On October 16, 2024, the Lady Justice statue underwent modifications: the blindfold was removed, and the sword in her left hand was replaced with the ‘Constitution of India’. Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, revealed the new structure. Sources say the reason behind these changes is to move away from the colonial legacy that still burdens India’s judicial system. Chandrachud also mentioned that the sword symbolizes violence, and laws are not blind; they see everyone equally. Lady Justice was also given Indian traditional touches, with her western coat replaced by a saree.

But are judicial systems truly evolving from their colonial legacy?

The motive behind these changes does not seem to be about bringing revolutionary improvements. Instead, they appear more suited for news headlines than for benefitting citizens. The Indian judiciary is still rooted in Colonial Laws and English Common Law. The government and judicial institutions do not seem inclined to remove these colonial relics. English common laws like the UAPA Act and exceptions to marital rape are still in use, and the government continues to oppose changes to these laws.

India has a serious problem with case pendency. The Supreme Court of India has around 80,000 pending cases, while district and high courts have a staggering 40 million cases awaiting resolution. We truly need reform to address this backlog and deliver justice more efficiently. Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL that sought to establish regional benches of the Supreme Court, a move that could have eased the burden of accessibility to justice. The Indian government provides food grains to 80 million people, but the accessibility of justice remains far from easy for the common people. This raises questions about the commitment to delivering justice by not establishing regional Supreme Court benches.

Another example of the judiciary’s reluctance for true reform is the dismissal of a PIL that aimed to clear all pending cases within 11 months. This is yet another pseudo-example of an evolving judicial system. The Collegium system, which recommends the appointment of judges to high courts and the Supreme Court, often faces long delays—sometimes as much as six months—which further contributes to the growing backlog of cases. In a recent address to the district court judge summit, the President of India remarked that “Black Coat Syndrome” should not deter common people from seeking justice. Justice, he said, must be delivered without delay. However, this is contradictory, as the President himself holds up the recommendations of the Collegium for months.

The UAPA Act is another colonial law that continues to be used by the government. This law has been used to suppress voices, especially among academicians, students, and activists who speak out for freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. These same tactics were used by colonial powers to imprison freedom fighters without trial. Reform is desperately needed here. 

In 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, but this was arguably the worst reform in Indian judicial history. The only real change was a rearrangement of the section numbers related to crimes, while the IPC 1860 is still largely in use. The BNS needs to be drafted following constitutional provisions, ensuring that citizens’ rights and freedoms are protected. The unit points system at the lower court level is also flawed. This system, which rewards judges based on the number of cases they dispose of, incentivizes them to prioritise simpler cases over more complex ones. As a result, victims of complex cases are left with constant adjournments and true justice is delayed. This system needs reform.

Another colonial relic that the government and courts resist changing is the marital rape exception. Originating from the Doctrine of Coverture in English common law, this provision views a married woman’s legal existence as merged with her husband’s. The exception to Section 375 of the IPC 1860, now reflected in Section 63 of the BNS, grants legal immunity to husbands for sexual acts with their wives, provided the wife is not under 18 years old. This provision is contradictory, as 18 is also the legal age for marriage, and it infringes upon constitutional rights.

These colonial-era provisions violate Article 14 (the right to equality), as they discriminate between married and unmarried women regarding protection against non-consensual sex. They also violate Article 15(1) (the right to non-discrimination) and Article 21 (the right to privacy and bodily integrity), as they infringe upon a woman’s autonomy over her body.

The Centre has opposed striking down the marital rape exception, arguing that it could lead to false accusations. It also argues that marriage creates reasonable expectations of sexual access, though it acknowledges that consent should not be violated. However, this indirectly endorses the colonial Doctrine of Coverture.

These examples prove that recent moves in the judiciary are not about eliminating colonial legacies but rather about creating a narrative that suggests the judiciary is evolving. True reform should include establishing regional Supreme Court benches to make justice more accessible, reducing case pendency, and ensuring that justice is affordable to the poorest citizens. The judiciary must also strike down outdated laws like the UAPA and marital rape exceptions if it genuinely wishes to reform itself.

Mohammad Hesham Atik is a student pursuing Psychology Hons. from Jamia Millia Islamia.

Edited By: Sana Faiz

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of The Jamia Review or its members.