There are judges and judges and lawyers and lawyers, and as Charles Dickens wrote, “if the law supposes that, the law is a ass”. I wonder what would be Dickens’ reaction to this incident.
Ordinarily, the Supreme Court judgment should finally settle any controversial issue, but not in our country. This is evident from the heated debates on the issue on TV channels and in public meetings.
Ambedkar emphasised that this caution is far more necessary in the case of India. For in India, bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in politics, unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country.
If we do not trust judges of the Supreme Court, then God save the country. We must put a lid upon the unfortunate controversy and save the institution, the office of the Chief Justice of India, from further damage.
Ambedkar believed that unless the moral values of a constitution are upheld, the grandiloquent words in it will not protect the freedom and democratic values of the people.
Invocation of the section (on sedition) should only be in cases of slogans which incite violence and have a tendency to create public disorder. Our state rests on solid foundations which cannot be disturbed by ill-tempered or pungent or stupid slogans.
The movie Kedarnath, which depicts the love story, has sparked a controversy. There are shrill demands for banning its exhibition. The Uttarakhand High Court observed that those who do not like the movie need not watch it.
One salutary consequence is that the right to privacy cannot be curtailed or abrogated by merely enacting a statute but can be done only by a constitutional amendment after complying with certain constitutional prerequisites.
