ARUN SRIVASTAVA
Judges of Supreme Court are feeling aggrieved at the insinuation against them by a section of the social media. They nurse the feeling that social media has been targeting the judges for no tangible reason. Justice JB Pardiwala, one of the judges on the bench which had been critical of BJP leader Nupur Sharma’s anti-Islam comments, a couple of days back raised the issue and observed that personal attacks on judges make them consider what the media thinks more than what the law thinks. He also called for the regulation of social media.
There is no denying that social media should exercise restraint. An insight into the reproach would reveal that the users owing their political and ideological allegiance to the RSS and BJP resort to such tactics to make the judges and judiciary to succumb to the wishes of the leaders. It is not that only the judges or judiciary are at their target but all other forums which are perceived to be protectors of the interest of the human rights and speak the truth, are at their target.
Justice Pardiwala is correct in his observation but it gives rise to a question, why the social media users gather courage to indulge in the game of insinuation. It would not be an exaggeration to say that a section of the judges are responsible for of this situation. In utter disrespect to the judicial sanctity, these judges openly side with such elements. We have seen how a sitting judge of the Supreme Court had eulogised Prime Minister Narendra Modi at least twice. Only recently a judge of the Delhi court while granting bail to AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair, remarked the Hindu religion and its followers were “tolerant”. What does it imply? Does it mean that other religions are intolerant? This remark is enough to boost the morale of Hindu activists who have been misusing the law for their political gains.
The foot soldiers of the saffron brigade have formed the habit of lodging false cases against the social and cultural activists and followers of Gandhian philosophy. The judges of the lower courts send the accused to the jails once the police approach them, with the request even without verifying the reasons. Their methodology manifests their unwillingness to question the motive and rationale. It is an enigma why they do not react once it becomes explicit that such elements are using judiciary to promote their political and ideological cause. In some cases ironically even the judges help the complainants in their pursuit.
Fact checker Zubair was arrested by the Delhi Police on June 27 for hurting religious sentiments through one of his tweets. After his arrest six more cases having the same narrative were filed at six different places in UP. Filing cases having similar nature of allegation in different districts and states has been the latest strategy of the RSS and BJP cadres to harass the critics of Modi. Judges complying to the police request underlines that they are not bothered of the observation of CJI NV Ramana on the issues that afflict the judicial system; from indiscriminate arrests to the prolonged imprisonment of people without bail or trial.
In Zubair case apex Court on Monday directed that no precipitative steps be taken against him in connection with five FIRs lodged against him in Uttar Pradesh. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna even remarked “it seems to be a vicious cycle” where the moment Zubair gets bail in one case, there is another FIR against him.
While the anchor of the ZEE TV who had telecast a false and motivated news against Rahul Gandhi, was given a blanket bail on the day he filed the petition, but Zubair who has been impishly framed is still in prison. The SC judge who granted bail to Zubair in one case should have asked the UP police not to precipitate the issue instead he ordered the UP government to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe all the six cases. Indeed amusing the court entrusted the task to probe to the UP Police which has implicated him only with the singular objective to harass him. Separate FIRs have been filed in Sitapur, Lakhimpur Kheri, Ghaziabad, Muzaffarnagar, and Hathras. This implies that the members of the saffron brigade have a nice relationship with the police and judicial system.
One more case which did not get thoughtful attention of the Supreme Court is a petition filed by a Gandhian activist Himanshu of Chhattisgarh. The order of a judge of the apex court in this regard is worth mentioning. The petition filed in 2009 sought an independent investigation into alleged incidents of extra-judicial killings of 17 tribals by security forces during anti-Naxal operations in the state. The court instead of allowing a probe imposed a cost of Rs five lakh on the petitioner. The bench said; “We leave it to the State of Chhattisgarh to take action. Actions should not be confined only to Section 211 of IPC. We are not proceeding with perjury, but it is open to state government to include charges like criminal conspiracy etc.” The court even accused him of wasting its time.
Yet another case in which apex court’s order has been questioned by common people is the use of bulldozer by the UP government. Though the UP government said that bulldozer would be used only to demolish properties of persons involved in riots or those of the criminals it is being used to demolish the houses and properties of the people those who do not subscribe to political ideology of Yogi Adityanath. Bulldozer has come to symbolise the brutal power of the state.
The Supreme Court has been in the news of late for some of its recent judgements. One of them was IN the case of Zakia Ahsan Jafri. The bench headed by Justice Khanwilkar expressed its indignation at the attempt by Zakia, whose husband, a former Member of Parliament, was burnt alive by a rioting mob in the 2002 Gujarat riots. The court not only accused her to “keep the pot boiling” by raising the issue, but it also pulled her up for coming to court after such a long time.
A famous adage says “justice should not only be done but it must appear that justice has been done”. The recent orders give rise to the impression that the wrongdoers are escaping the wrath of the apex court while the people who really need the justice are not getting it. Judges ought to do some introspection and define the role of the Supreme Court. Crores of the poor people of this country look towards it as the last hope for their survival and existence. (IPA Service)