Suddenly, new bold judgments and brave noises can be heard from the judges’ corner. On Monday (September 7), according to the Indian Express, the new chief justice of Punjab and Haryana high court asserted: “This court would be governed by the rule of law and this institution will not be browbeaten by any kind of tactics. So, therefore, we will go strictly as per the law. We have taken the oath of the constitution and we know how to preserve our oath and defend it…” Go forth, my Lordship.Also on Monday, a division bench of Allahabad high court, boldly rebuked the Uttar Pradesh government and its officers for their “casual and cavalier exercise of authority.” The bench cautioned officers against reducing Uttar Pradesh to an “Orwellian dystopia” and reminded them that their loyalty lay with the Constitution, not the political executive.” About time, my Lordship.And, then, a few Mondays ago, the chief justice of India (CJI) himself had ticked off the Union government for wanting to ban a peaceful protest march planned by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). For good measure, CJI Surya Kant also upheld the idea of dissent. Better late than never, my Chief Lordship.Every republican voice will welcome this display of judicial assertiveness. Indeed, future historians would be at a loss to decode as to how and why a whole generation of senior judicial corps allowed itself to be intimidated into submission by a bunch of politicians – even if “elected” with a clear-cut ‘mandate’ – who were never worthy of such deference.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.Admitted, judges are not without their vulnerabilities nor without cupboards. Admitted, the post-2014 regime came with a reputation for ruthlessness. Perhaps the entire fraternity felt a chill down its collective spine in the wake of the mysterious death of Judge B.H. Loya on December 1, 2014. That chill congealed into an institutional bronchitis when a few years later a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court declared that there was no reason to suspect any hanky-panky in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) special judge’s death. All those who aspired to adorn the bench in senior judiciary learnt the usefulness of indulging the executive in its “My way or high way” approach to friends and foes alike.It is also possible that perhaps many in the higher judiciary could not resist the meretricious charm of the new ruling elite, taking at face value the slogan of a ‘corruption-mukt (corruption free)’ India and all that glib talk of a cultural renaissance. But, then, a decade is too long a time in the life of a ruler; certainly, long enough to remind everyone of Lord Acton’s famous dictum: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” An officer is obligated to interpret and use her/his discretion in a jayaz ( just and correct) manner; not on a personal whim, not for a political leader.The division bench of Allahabad high court has redeemed the entire justice system by pouring ‘derision’ on the Noida district magistrate. Some may suggest that she finds herself in judicial cross-hair because of her father, who is widely criticised as the chief election commissioner (CEC) for going to inordinate length in providing aid and comfort to the ruling clique. That argument is specious.The arrogant district magistrate had slapped the National Security Act (NSA) against the activist, Aakrit Chaudhary, not because an example had to be made of her but because it was critically vital for the ruling regime to shut down any suggestion of a labour insurgency. The international investor has to be impressed that the impresarios of “Viksit Bharat” could put the troublesome labour in its place; the desi businessman has been assured of ‘ease of doing business.’ Labour unions are a precursor to civil rights and democratic liberties. Labour movements provide a pit stop to the ‘dimagi Naxals (intellectual Naxals)’. The Noida officers had anticipated the prime minister’s ideological offensive much before August 15.It would be too optimistic and perhaps too impetuous to ask if the judicial worm has turned. It could be that as an institution consisting of reasonable men and women of intelligence and wisdom, the judiciary has come to believe that the Modi regime has flunked the Communist Party of China test. In post-Mao China, the ruling party has manufactured a legitimacy for itself and an acceptance of its dictatorial arrangement in exchange for a competent and commendable essay in economic growth.By contrast, our rulers’ have made totalitarian claims on citizens’ obedience and compliance in pursuit of a Viksit Bharat, without much result to show. Vast swathes of population remain untouched with impressive figures of growth. The new ruling class has proved to be a very ordinary entity. What is worse, the regime could not even drape itself in the trappings of a Ram Rajya. Its middle-class constituency is offended by the utterly immoral politics that has been patented by the strongman, Amit Shah. And, a poor Mohan Bhagwat has to travel all the way to the United States to sing the song of diversity, while at home the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) “cadres” are issuing fatwas on who can and who cannot join the Navratri celebrations.It is this context of growing disenchantment and disappointment with the ruling regime that the judiciary has resumed, hopefully, its role as a watchdog of constitutional wholesomeness. To be sure, the ruling clique will want to nip the bud any resurgence of judicial autonomy. It will hope to impress the entire judicial fraternity with the razzmatazz of a BRICS summit in New Delhi. That show has nothing to do with the common man and his existential struggles. In the coming months, the democratic expectation is that the judges will rediscover their institutional mojo and will have the wisdom to navigate a prudent path between confrontation and collusion.Harish Khare was editor-in-chief of The Tribune.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.