Why 'Justice Must Be Seen To Be Done' Matters For All Public Decisions

The core principle in the CEC debate

Last week, the Supreme Court questioned the government’s 2023 law that changed how India’s Chief Election Commissioner is selected. The old process included the Chief Justice of India on the selection panel. The new law replaces the CJI with a Cabinet Minister chosen by the Prime Minister. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued the Prime Minister’s office holds constitutional trust, so there is no reason to doubt his choices. But Justice Dipankar Datta pushed back. He said the question was not about bad faith from the Prime Minister. It was about a basic rule: justice must not only be done, but shown to be done. The court noted the panel now has two executive representatives and one from the opposition. That 2-1 split makes it look like the ruling party controls the pick. Even if the selection is completely fair, the public will doubt it if the process does not look neutral.

Fair process matters in every public conflict

This principle shows up far beyond election commissioner picks. Take the ongoing Cauvery water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. This year, Karnataka faced a severe drought, with reservoir inflows 65% below the 30-year average. It asked the Cauvery Water Management Authority to reduce the water it releases to Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu argued it benefits from both the southwest monsoon, via Karnataka’s water releases, and the upcoming northeast monsoon. It has a “dual advantage” from both weather systems. The authority had to balance two legitimate claims. If the process for deciding the water share looked biased toward one state, the dispute would spiral. Farmers on both sides would lose trust in the system.

Transparency stops unnecessary conflict

The same logic applies to how law enforcement handles public protests. Last week, the Delhi High Court questioned the police’s use of pellet guns during protests, asking for clear, public protocols for when force is allowed. A 2024 study from a Srinagar medical college found that over 40% of pellet gun victims suffered grievous injuries, including loss of eyesight. Many of these victims also developed long-term depression and PTSD. If the public does not know the rules for when police can use force, every protest turns into a fight over whether the response is fair. Clear, transparent rules protect both protesters and police officers, because everyone knows what to expect.

Even small fairness gaps erode trust

Last month, after a protest at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, multiple social media accounts shared personal information of women who attended. They called on followers to harass these women. The women received rape and death threats, even after they posted apologies for any offensive remarks. The right to protest only works if people feel safe using it. When the state does not act quickly to protect protestors from targeted harassment, it signals that dissent is not welcome. That erodes trust in the entire system of public expression, not just the specific protest.

The takeaway

It is easy to think that as long as decisions are technically correct, that is enough. But public trust depends on more than correct outcomes. It depends on processes that look fair to everyone involved. The Supreme Court’s focus on neutral election panel members is not about doubting the Prime Minister’s integrity. It is about making sure every Indian can trust the result, no matter who wins the election.

If you want to practice working through real-world policy and legal questions like this, create a free Question Better account to access practice sets built from real public issues.