We are on the cusp of the new year, nursing the hope that it will usher in a new dawn, where, in the words of Rabindranath Tagore, “the mind is without fear and the head is held high”. The wish list is long. Briefly put, can we hope that in the new year no Stan Swamy, suffering from Parkinson’s disease, will be deprived of a sipper and straw, ultimately meeting a tragic end within the four walls of a prison cell as he awaits the hearing of his bail application. Can we hope that no Siddique Kappan will be arrested, and kept in custody for over two years for offences under UAPA and PMLA, only for trying to report on the Hathras gang rape? Can we hope that like Munawar Faruqui, no stand-up comedian will be jailed for over a month for allegedly hurting religious sentiments during a show? Can we hope that no climate change activist, like 22-year-old Disha Ravi, will be kept in custody for days together just for sharing a toolkit relating to the farmers’ protest, and that too on charges of sedition and promoting enmity? Can we hope that no Mohammad Javed will see his house bulldozed because he allegedly organised and participated in a protest against Nupur Sharma’s remarks about Prophet Mohammad? Can we hope that no persons like the rapists of Bilkis Bano will roam free and be honoured? Can we hope that no principal or teacher, like those of a government school in Bareilly, will be suspended and booked for merely allowing the recitation of “Bacche ki dua” by Muhammad Iqbal — who also wrote “Saare jahan se achha Hindustan hamara” — on the ground that the prayer was a bid to convert the students to Islam?
All this is happening under the watch of the state. Some believe that it is with the blessings of the state, and this, to some extent, may be true. After all, was it not a minister in the Union cabinet who raised the slogan, “Desh ke gaddaron ko” and prompted the crowd to respond with, “Goli maaro saalo ko”? Was it not a ruling party MP who compared the protestors at Shaheen Bagh with those who allegedly forced Kashmiri Pandits to leave Kashmir, and warned that such people could enter their homes to rape their mothers and daughters? Was it not the son of a minister in the Union cabinet who allegedly drove his SUV over a group of farmers, killing four of them and a journalist, apparently to teach them a lesson for protesting against the three farm laws? Was it not under the watchful eye of the state that a “Dharam Sansad” was held, where some self-proclaimed holy men gave an open call for violence against Muslims?
In such scenarios, who were the citizens to turn to but the judiciary as they sought protection of their right to life and liberty? Unfortunately, till N V Ramana took over as the Chief Justice of India, at least four of his predecessors were seen as standing with the government, even when the fundamental rights and civil liberties of the people were under attack and dissent was being suppressed by using the UAPA or the draconian law of sedition. It was only after Justice Ramana took charge that some faith in the judiciary was restored. During his tenure, the Supreme Court agreed to revisit the sedition law, and urged the government to refrain from lodging FIRs under the said law. It was his bench which cancelled the bail of Ashish Mishra, the son of a Union Minister of State. And again, it was his bench which halted the demolition drive in Jahangirpuri in Delhi. His successor, Justice U U Lalit, who had a tenure of less than three months, made sincere efforts to bring about the much-needed reforms in the listing of cases with a view to ensuring that important cases no longer remained on the back burner, and were heard expeditiously.
The present Chief Justice of India is known for his commitment to fundamental rights and civil liberties of the people. The government had no problem with the Supreme Court as long as it was docile and was, by and large, toeing its line. But now, fearing a more assertive Court, the Union Minister of Law and Justice finds the collegium system of appointment of judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court opaque and not accountable. Shockingly, he also feels that it is no business of the Supreme Court to hear bail applications. He has also questioned the Court’s order putting the sedition law in abeyance. The Law Minister would do well to remember that law has to remain perennially in progress, and that what he desires is merely a recipe of disaster. It is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to hear bail applications whenever it finds that a person is being wrongly deprived of liberty. The present Chief Justice, in one of his orders, said that “deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many.” This is the essence of liberty.
Let us hope that in the new year the government will be less confrontational with the Supreme Court. As for the judiciary, it must author its own script and the new Chief Justice must follow his own sun.
The writer is a former judge of the Delhi High Court
