On Saturday, a mob in Colombo stormed the offices of the prime minister and the president, a signal not just of a breakdown of order but also of a complete defeat of the constitutional processes at work in Sri Lanka. The denouement was an inevitable byproduct of decades of a politics that was predicated on majoritarian triumphalism. Economic mismanagement and chaos are a mere reflection of a polity that long ago abandoned any kind of notion of equilibrium in its governing arrangements. Just about the time mobs were gathering in Colombo, another crowd was snaking its way from Mandi House to Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. The crowd was summoned by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) but the Delhi BJP leadership was also in attendance. The New Delhi mob did not cause any kind of disorder but it did serve notice, as per the headline in the Indian Express: “Chorus at march by Hindu outfits: India will be run as per Constitution, not Sharia.”This, of course, is from the same corner that not long ago used to argue that a “dharma sansad” of revered saints and sadhus carried greater weightage than a “sansad” elected by the sovereign people of India. Maybe the unstated theme of the so-called “Sankalp March” was to express disapproval of the recent comments two sitting judges of the Supreme Court had made on the now-suspended BJP spokesperson, Nupur Sharma.The show of street power was a continuation of a much larger but much more subtle assault underway on the Supreme Court. Only a few days earlier, it may be recalled, as many as 117 former judges, ex-bureaucrats, and retired military generals felt agitated enough to go hammer and tongs at the two sitting judges of the Supreme Court for their comments from the bench on the enormity of the BJP functionary’s rhetorical excesses. This exertion was yet another reminder that in the aftermath of the Udaipur killing, our collective sanity is on the verge of becoming unhinged. The statement from these “concerned citizens” clearly carries the imprimatur and the inspiration of the higher echelons of the governing cabal. And the people who have consented to append their names and signatures to this statement will not object if they are to be described as establishment men. It is an expression of the increasing impatience among the ruling elites with any individual or institution that does not fall in line with the official orthodoxy. This kind of ideologically-determined righteousness is, of course, a familiar failing in all authoritarian or quasi-authoritarian systems. The central concern of all democratic forces and constitutional voices ought to be to avoid a Sri Lanka-style breakdown in our country; in other words, how do we prevent an ultra-aggressive executive from tipping over from the weight of its arrogance and megalomania? The ruling coterie is entitled to think that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s presumed charisma and manufactured popularity elevate him and his government above the constitutionally-mandated structure of restraints and constraints. Yet, the primary legitimacy any prime minister in India enjoys can only be located firmly within the four walls of the constitution, and what that constitution permits or does not permit can only be decided by the Supreme Court. And, it is hardly secret that in recent years the authority of the apex court has been qualitatively mauled – partly because our judicial leadership had allowed itself to become too overawed by the political momentum of the day. Can the lost judicial authority be retrieved?The question has acquired an urgency because ever since the US Supreme Court has, in the Dobbs case, provided so much comfort and joy to the conservative forces in that deeply divided country, the (essentially copy-cat) right-wing in India is itching to bend the apex court to its partisan passions and prejudices. These over-driven right-wingers would like to overhaul the constitution and the Supreme Court and make them instruments of their narrow agenda. The other day, Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana had bemoaned the fact that both government and opposition find fault with the judiciary for not helping them carry on their partisan politics. The lament is not without merit. No judge or judiciary should get involved in the politicians’ quarrels; after all. It is not the judiciary’s job to make up for the opposition’s inadequacies nor should it ever take lightly its role as a bulwark of constitutional reasonableness, especially if the government insists on being politically contemptuous of the opposition’s space and privileges in our parliamentary system. The Supreme Court. In the foreground is Lakhimpur Kheri, a day after eight people were killed in October 2021. Photos: PTIMore than playing an intrepid third umpire between government and opposition, the higher judiciary in a democratic nation ought to be a sensitive guardian of the citizen and her rights and liberties against an increasingly insensitive and overweening executive. If India has continued and prospered as a substantive democracy it is because the Supreme Court, from the very beginning, did not allow a runaway government to trample over the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed by the constitution. Post-2014, sadly, the court has been less than vigilant on behalf of the citizen and too solicitous of the concerns and arguments of a political executive that is gently nudging the nation towards deeply debilitating divisions. This failing has had harmful consequences.Politically instigated, electorally driven grandstanding has become all too consuming in the age of social media. The Nupur Sharma virus has infected our body politic and extreme elements in all religious communities are pushing out saner and sober voices. Our clever Chanakyas may delude themselves that they can control and calibrate the religious madness they have unleashed. But when a political crowd starts feeling and acting as if it has all the country’s institutions lined up behind it, the only corrective is provided by the mobs of the kind that have taken over Colombo. That is why it is in everybody’s interest that the Supreme Court retrieve its lost judicial authority, and do so quickly.