I don't understand Indian system so probably my comment should be taken with grain of salt. But this shows that supreme court is not independent enough to preserve attack on democracy even when a fundamental tenet of the constitution is attacked, when the attack is coming from the very people who were suppose to safeguard it i.e. current government. So although there is a separation of powers in a democratic system, it looks like similar to what happens in China, where the courts need to listen to government.
In Democracy like in USA "Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution." So this way president and government of the day can have rules favoring its ideology. In India "The Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President under clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution." In this the president of India is a titular body working on the directions of prime minister and existing government. So in both the system indeed Judiciary appears to be completely independent but seems government has an influence on it. So in China's communist system and democracy like USA and India its only a difference of semantics but the effect is similar. The government of the day can influence the judiciary.