Letting article 370 reform go unchallenged would be one example.
It was an opportunistic edge case that allowed the federal body to decide on a state matter because the state government was temporarily missing and a caretaker government was in charge.
Court chose to look the other way.
One can arguesuch opportunism is legal as far as the letter of the law is concerned. It is common on legal proceedings for the spirit of the law to be upheld rather than the letter, except for business/commercial contracts.
Tell me the Supreme Court is doing its job when it hears the long pending cases on Aadhaar, electoral bonds and others of critical national interest. So far, it's just been busy playing around with telecom company dues, Tata Sons' dispute with Cyrus Mistry, etc.
The Constitution gives the judges enormous powers in the form of Contempt of Court act[1]. Unlike other draconian laws, this is not even talked about in open due to fear of courts. You have already mentioned Prashant Bhushan's case. There is this case of Justice Karnan, a sitting High Court judge, was punished for raising voice against some senior judges[2]. The outrage at the time was quite limited as he is not a known government antagonist. Ironically, Prashant Bhushan was also cheering the sentencing of Justice Karnan[3].
