In the aftermath of Mavelikkara Additional Sessions Court’s decision to award the death penalty to 15 individuals in connection with the murder of BJP leader Ranjith Sreenivasan, Judge VG Sreedevi found herself under the shadow of online threats. The heightened security cover comes in response to the alarming posts on social media platforms targeting the judge.

Ranjith Sreenivasan, the State Secretary of the BJP OBC Morcha, was fatally attacked and murdered in his residence on December 19, 2021. The verdict, which sentenced all 15 accused, associated with the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI), to death, triggered a wave of online vitriol against Judge VG Sreedevi.

As reported by India Today, the court order cited “absolute justification” for the capital punishment meted out to the accused individuals involved in the case. The sentencing will be formally pronounced later by the court.

Police authorities have responded swiftly to the online threats, deploying a sub-inspector and additional personnel to bolster the security cover for Judge VG Sreedevi. The insults and threats on social media platforms have raised concerns about the judge’s safety following the high-profile verdict.

Earlier, on January 20, the court had determined the direct involvement of eight individuals (accused 1-8) in the murder case. Additionally, four others (accused 9-12) were found guilty of murder for being present at the crime scene armed with deadly weapons along with those directly implicated. The court also identified three conspirators among the accused, holding them guilty of criminal conspiracy and murder.

Not the first time judges have been threatened

This is not the first time that judges have been threatened for a verdict that is not in favour of “minorities”. We have the recent Hijab verdict and Ramjanmabhoomi verdict as examples. Here’s what happened.

Hijab verdict: Two Tamil Nadu Towheed Jamaat members, Kovai Rahamathulla and S. Jamal Mohammad Usmani, were arrested for issuing death threats to Karnataka High Court judges dismissing hijab petitions. In a viral video, Rahamathulla instigated violence, referring to a judge’s death. BJP Chief K. Annamalai demanded an inquiry, and an FIR was filed in Bengaluru for death threats and communal disharmony. Karnataka CM Basavaraj Bommai announced ‘Y category‘ security for the judges, condemning threats and questioning the silence of “pseudo-seculars.” He ordered an investigation into the Tamil Nadu arrest, stressing the importance of respecting judiciary decisions and pledging strict action against threats, deeming them a threat to democracy.

Ramjanmabhoomi verdict: The Central government accorded Z Plus security to Justice S Abdul Nazeer, a judge in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, due to threats from the Popular Front of India (PFI). The decision follows intelligence reports indicating potential dangers to the judge and his family. The Ministry of Home Affairs instructed CRPF and local police to provide security, citing threats from the PFI and other sources. The enhanced security will be implemented in Karnataka and other areas. Justice Nazeer played a pivotal role in significant cases, including the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict and the criminalisation of Triple Talaq.

Gyanvapi video survey ruling: Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who had mandated the video survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi, reported to the Uttar Pradesh authorities on Tuesday that he had received a handwritten threat letter. In correspondence addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Director General of Police (DGP), and the Varanasi Police Commissionerate, Diwakar conveyed that he had received the letter, allegedly scribed by Kashif Ahmed Siddiqui on behalf of the Islamic Aagaz Movement, through registered post.

Liberals like Kapil Sibal who “bullied” the SC judges: Representing the Muslim petitioners in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, Congress leader and lawyer Kapil Sibal and other senior lawyers had engaged in use of strong language and bullying the bench led by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The Supreme Court criticised Congress leader Kapil Sibal and other senior lawyers for their conduct during the Ayodhya case hearing. Chief Justice Dipak Misra expressed the court’s displeasure, emphasizing that raising voices and threats of walking out would not be tolerated. The court rejected their plea. The lawyers’ attempt to delay the case by falsely claiming documents were not supplied was exposed by the opposing side. The incident raised questions about the Congress party’s stance and Sibal’s strategy, creating embarrassment. The court criticised the lawyers for attempting to stall proceedings and insisted on adhering to legal principles rather than creating a spectacle.

Subsequently, the Opposition parties led by the Congress tried to even impeach the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The opposition alleged misbehaviour and misuse of authority by Misra, including involvement in a bribery conspiracy and abuse of administrative power. Seventy-one MPs have signed the impeachment motion. This was later rejected by the then VP Venkaiah Naidu.

The recent threats to the judge in Kerala highlight a disturbing trend of Islamist threats against the justice system. The swift resort to intimidation tactics by Islamists blatantly exposes their hypocrisy, as these are the same people who also jump on the “constitutional morality” bandwagon. Their tactics of instilling fear in the judiciary to prevent them from delivering justice is a blatant assault on the principles of a fair and independent legal system, undermining the very essence of democratic values and the rule of law. 

Not only did the leftist historians try to hoodwink the Muslims over the Babri dispute, they tried every trick in the book to keep the communal fire burning. Ably aided by the Congressi seculars, leftist liberals together with the Islamists have been continuously trying to bully the constitutional authorities if judgements are not in their favour.

The law of this land is for everyone and is equal to everyone; just because the perpetrators are from the minority community, it does not absolve them of the crime.