What if it's not supreme any longer?

 "Democratic barbarism is often sustained by a judicial barbarism," wrote PB Mehta. "The application of law becomes so dependent on the arbitrary whims of individual judges that the rule of law or constitutional terms no longer have any meaning. The law becomes an instrument of oppression; or, at the very least, it aids and abets oppression." Recently, "a Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde observed that it is 'trying to discourage' individuals from filing petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution."  "Article 32 deals with the 'Right to Constitutional Remedies'," so that "When it comes to violation of fundamental rights, an individual can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court directly under Article 32." "Article 226, however, is not a fundamental right like Article 32." The outrage is the result of the expeditious hearing of the bail plea of Arnab Goswami, who is the news anchor of Republic TV and an outspoken supporter of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, by the Supreme Court. In a letter to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Dushyant Dave wrote, "While thousands of citizens remain in jails, languishing for long periods while their matters before the Supreme Court are not getting listed for weeks and months, it is, to say the least, is deeply disturbing, how and why every time Mr Goswami approaches the Supreme Court, his matter gets listed instantly."  Advocate Gaurav Bhatia of Modi's party, the BJP, wrote a point by point rebuttal of Mehta's charges as just "selective outrage syndrome" of a group of "disgruntled individuals". "In this case, criticism of the judiciary stems not from facts or evidence but from ideological inclination and utter dislike of particular political leaders." This "selective outrage" is totally justified because, in an unprecedented move, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ranjan Gogoi was nominated to the Rajya Sabha by the Modi government barely 4 months after retiring. Reward for what? When accused of sexual harassment by a junior court assistant, Justice Gogoi "cast doubt on her integrity and tried to contrast it with his own, which he sought to establish via the irrelevant example of a modest bank balance". Finally, an in-house committee was set up in violation of the Supreme Court's own Vishaka guidelines in cases of sexual harassment, and the complaints were dismissed because the complainant refused to attend hearings as she had no confidence in the committee. Finally, two years back, "Four senior judges of the Supreme Court, Justices J Chalameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph dropped a bombshell today calling a press conference to express their dissent against the way Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was functioning." Not "disgruntled individuals", these. "We don't want to formally declare a state of emergency but we might as well act as if there is one, as and when the need arises. Discourage, rather than suspend, the use of Article 32," wrote Mehta. What hope for us if the Supreme Court cannot pass the smell test. It's disaster.