The British politician William Gladstone (1809-1898) once said justice delayed is justice denied. Our Supreme Court now appears set to prove the validity of this saying ― in a reverse way ― by prolonging a ruling on a bribery case involving an opposition lawmaker.

After sitting on the case for more than 20 months, a panel at the top court recently referred it to deliberation by all of the 13 justices. With this measure, it may take an almost indefinite time to make a final verdict on the charge raised against Rep. Han Myeong-sook five years ago that she received 880 million won ($790,000) in illicit funds from a local building firm when she served as prime minister from 2006-07.

In 2013, a Seoul appellate court sentenced her to two years in prison for bribery, overriding a lower court’s ruling that cleared her of the charge. But the high court did not put her under custody, out of consideration of her status as an incumbent lawmaker. Calling the ruling “unacceptable and politically motivated,” Han immediately appealed to the Supreme Court.

It is doubtful that there was a political motive behind the 2013 ruling as the opposition legislator claimed. But many people now suspect that the Supreme Court is delaying its verdict on her case out of political considerations.

Some raise the suspicion that Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae has been using the case to encourage cooperation from the main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy, to which Han belongs, in amending the law on the judicial structure to set up a new appellate court.

The NPAD blocked a parliamentary vote on the confirmation of a justice nominee for more than three months earlier this year in what was seen as a move to put pressure on the top court to be cautious in handling Han’s case.

The Supreme Court says the ruling has been delayed as there remain many controversial issues to be clarified. In the public eye, however, this explanation hardly seems persuasive. Last month, a civic group filed a complaint with a prosecutor’s office against the three judges on the panel dealing with Han’s case on charges of dereliction of duty.

With the Supreme Court continuing to drag its feet, the opposition lawmaker may be allowed to serve out her four-year term that expires in May 2016. This would further undermine public trust in the judicial system.

Delaying the ruling out of political consideration would only result in turning the public against the proposal to establish a new court of appeal. Under this circumstance, the main opposition party might hesitate to take the lead in passing the bill to change the relevant law.

The Supreme Court should not belittle itself just to gain some favor with a political force. It should avoid degrading its dignity by giving the impression of being as political as politicians.

Yang and his colleagues should be quick to make a verdict on Han’s case.