Supreme Court's rescue act: A case of too little, too late

The Supreme Court's role in protecting fundamental rights has come under scrutiny, with observers arguing that judicial intervention often arrives too late to prevent damage. While the court has reminded the state of its constitutional obligations, critics contend that reminders alone are insufficient when executive actions can cause irreversible consequences.

A persistent challenge in judicial review is the gap between when violations occur and when courts can intervene. By the time remedies are granted, the harm may already be done, limiting the practical utility of judicial oversight. This pattern has raised questions about the effectiveness of India's judicial system in preventing rights abuses before they take root.

The debate highlights a fundamental tension in constitutional governance: whether courts can move fast enough to protect citizens from executive overreach, or whether structural delays inherently limit their protective capacity. Observers argue the judiciary must evolve its approach to ensure fundamental rights remain safeguarded in practice, not merely in principle.