The problems with the judiciary go far beyond backlogs; far too many judges seem to hold extreme personal prejudices and are not shy about basing their judgemen

The problems with the judiciary go far beyond backlogs; far too many judges seem to hold extreme personal prejudices and are not shy about basing their judgements on them. An ongoing controversy concerns the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who offered an alleged rapist freedom in exchange for marrying his victim. The victim, who was underage at the time of the attacks, was "stalked, tied up, gagged, repeatedly raped and was threatened with being doused in petrol, set alight and have her brother killed". [1] Other judgements from 2020 that the Freedom House report refers to include the acquittal of allies of the ruling party for demolishing a 15th century mosque (despite overwhelming evidence) and granting the site of that mosque to allies of the ruling party to build a Hindu temple, a court case which bizarrely considered a Hindu deity one of the winning litigants. Previous judgements acquitted the current home minister and president of the ruling party of ordering extra-judicial killings and freed other members of the ruling party who were previously convicted of murders during religious riots. This is not to say all judgements fall into this pattern. There are undoubtedly a few highlights such as Shreya Singhal (online freedom of expression), 377 (decriminalization of homosexuality) and the Right to Privacy (is a thing). However these are few and far between. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/04/indias-top-judge-tells-accused-rapist-to-marry-victim-to-avoid-jail https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/04/indias-top-jud...