In the last few weeks, we saw some hard-hitting ‘statements’ made by some big legal names. The Solicitor General of India, Mr Tushar Mehta made many allegations accusing some former judges, some high courts and senior lawyers for trying to ‘influence’ the court. It is the same gentleman who spoke that there is no migration crisis in India and everything has been handled so well. Mehta Saheb these days are upset with high courts and many lawyers have raised the issue of public litigation. Another big luminary jumped in and accused that ‘un-elected’ people are trying to run the government through the Supreme Court. His point was that there is a PIL syndicate and these people criticise the judges on social media and if the judgement does not come along with their line of thinking then they start blaming the judges. This legal luminary also said that this is ‘tyranny of un-elected’ which put motive to every judge who is blamed. Now, according to him that there is nothing wrong in criticising Supreme Court but the issue comes when we put motive to judges when the judgement is not as per our choice. This has come at the time when Supreme Court faced severe criticism from our former judges like Justice Markandey Katju, Justice Madan Lokur and Justice A P Shah. Many senior advocates of the bar too have been critical. Unlike the Supreme Court, high courts of various states have been able to take up cases related to migrant workers and gave various order. Now the term being used against human rights defenders and those who have filed various litigation that they are imposing ‘tyranny of unelected’. Now this is really serious. Being elected does not give anyone authority to trample with the constitution or law of the land. Leaders are elected so that they make laws as per the wishes of the people but at the same point of time, it is the people based on their quality and experience that they join various services of the executive though the judiciary is an autonomous institution. You can’t have…