Why US Lawmakers Should Respect India’s Sovereignty and Independent Judiciary:
The recent letter written by a group of United States lawmakers to the Indian Ambassador, expressing concern over the detention of activist Umar Khalid, has once again brought to the forefront an uncomfortable yet necessary debate, where does legitimate concern end and unwarranted interference in a sovereign democracy begin?
India is not an authoritarian state, nor is it a fledgling democracy requiring external guardianship. It is the world’s largest democracy, governed by a written Constitution, a robust separation of powers, and one of the most independent judiciaries anywhere in the world. Any attempt, direct or indirect to question India’s legal processes without full context risks undermining not just Indian institutions, but the very principles of international respect and sovereignty.
Activism is acceptable but not attempt, by words or deeds to divide India.. India does not need any lectures by Countries who has regularly created and supported Terrorists Countries and Organisations across the World.
Also Read:
Trump Planning New “Superclub” With India? Inside the Buzz Around a Potential Core-5 Power Grouping.
India’s Judiciary: Independent, Accountable, and Constitutionally Entrenched:
India’s judicial system is structurally insulated from political influence. Judges are appointed through a constitutionally backed process, enjoy security of tenure, and routinely pass judgments against governments of the day something that is widely documented and internationally acknowledged.
From striking down executive actions to expanding civil liberties through landmark rulings, Indian courts have consistently demonstrated independence. To suggest that an Indian citizen is denied justice merely because of political narratives is to ignore decades of constitutional jurisprudence and institutional credibility.
Legal proceedings in India are governed by:
Due process of law,
Judicial oversight at every stage,
Rights to appeal up to the Supreme Court,
Umar Khalid’s case, like any other, is sub judice. The matter is being examined by courts of law, not by political offices. Selective international commentary while legal proceedings are ongoing risks prejudicing due process rather than protecting it.
No Individual Is Above the Law, in Any Democracy:
Democracy does not mean immunity from investigation. In India, as in the United States, activism, dissent, or ideology does not confer exemption from legal scrutiny when allegations relate to public order, violence, or national security.
Ironically, the same US political ecosystem that routinely defends strict national security laws such as the Patriot Act, now seeks to lecture India on civil liberties, without acknowledging contextual realities, evidence presented before courts, or the principle of judicial restraint.
Justice must be allowed to take its course, free from external pressure, political posturing, or ideological bias.
Religious or Political Bias Cannot Justify External Judgments.
International concern must be consistent, principled, and free from selective outrage. When commentary appears, disproportionately focused on specific individuals or narratives aligned with certain ideological positions, it raises legitimate questions about political or religious bias rather than genuine human rights advocacy.
India’s legal system does not adjudicate cases based on religion, belief, or political alignment. To imply otherwise is not only misleading but deeply disrespectful to the constitutional values India upholds.
No nation or group of lawmakers has a birthright to judge another democracy through the lens of its own domestic political compulsions.
Sovereignty and International Law Go Both Ways:
International law is founded on mutual respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. Diplomatic engagement should strengthen bilateral trust, not erode it through public pressure on judicial matters.
India does not interfere in the domestic legal processes of other democracies. The same courtesy must be extended in return.
Constructive dialogue between nations is welcome. Moral grandstanding over sub judice matters is not.
Conclusion: Democracy Needs Institutions, Not External Endorsements:
India’s democracy does not require certification from foreign lawmakers. Its legitimacy flows from its Constitution, its courts, and its people.
Healthy democracies are built on strong institutions, not external validation. The Indian judiciary is capable, competent, and constitutionally empowered to deliver justice, fairly and independently.
Respecting India means respecting its institutions.
Team: Hindustandigest.com
More Featured Articles:
Venture Capital and Private Equity Funding in India: A Complete Founder’s Guide (2025)
SIDBI – Powering India’s MSME Growth: Funding, Schemes & Business Support.
One thought on “Why US Lawmakers Should Respect India’s Sovereignty and Independent Judiciary:”