The Indian judiciary has repeatedly not just bent over backwards to please the Khan Market cabal but also taken stances that have only emboldened anti-Hindu elements to go full throttle.

Judiciary goes soft on Mohammad Zubair & Munnawar Faruqui

A Hinduphobic Islamist who got a long rope from the judiciary, particularly the apex court, is ‘comedian’ Munawar Faruqui. The Supreme Court (SC) granted him bail despite the lower judiciary clearly mentioning that Faruqui could not be let out on bail.

The High Court had observed that after taking into consideration the material seized and the statements of the witnesses along with the ongoing investigation in the matter, no case is made out for the grant of bail. However, the SC bench noted that his arrest did not ‘follow procedure’ under section 41 CrPC. The top court also granted him protection from being arrested by Uttar Pradesh police, which lodged a separate case, by staying the production warrant issued against him.

Another Hinduphobic who has been the Indian Judiciary’s blue-eyed boy is POCSO-accused Islamist propagandist Mohammad Zubair was not just given bail but the judiciary also refused to bar him from tweeting. He had shared an edited clip of Nupur Sharma unleashing the Sar Tan Se Juda (STSJ) gang on her forcing her to go incognito.

In the latest instance, Zubair shared yet another cropped video to further his propaganda. Islamists pelted stones on July 23 at a group of Kanwariyas, injuring more than a dozen of them, near Shahnoori mosque in the Jogi Nawada locality in Bareilly city of Uttar Pradesh.

Following this incident, Zubair, who has a notorious history of shielding Islamists, shared a cropped video of the incident to give the impression that it was not the Muslim mob that attacked the Kanwariyas. However, the longer version of the video shared by popular Twitter user Ankur Singh clearly showed that the Muslim mob started the stone pelting and that any subsequent stone pelting by the Kanwariyas was retaliation and/or self-defence.

After putting Nupur’s life under threat, he recently unleashed an Islamist mob against Rashmi Samant and Shefali Vaidya after losing ground in the Udupi College video recording case. Zubair tagged Udupi police in a post alleging Shefali and Rashmi were spreading false information regarding the Udupi case.

However, the college confirmed the suspension of three Muslim female students in the matter. Despite this Zubair tried his best to do a repeat of Nupur Sharma with Shefali and Rashmi. His plan failed after the female activists called out his lies and drew the attention of the National Commission for Women as well as Union Minister Smriti Irani.

The judicial bias will become aptly clear when we compare the kid-glove treatment meted out to the aforementioned Islamists in general and POCSO-accused serial liar Zubair in particular to that of Manish Kashyap’s case. While the apex judiciary wanted the power of arrest to be used sparingly in Zubair’s case when it came to Manish Kashyap’s arrest by the Tamil Nadu government, CJI Chandrachud refused to interfere.

On 8 May 2023, the Supreme Court (SC) rejected YouTuber Manish Kashyap’s plea to consolidate the FIRs filed against him in both Bihar and Tamil Nadu. These FIRs were related to his dissemination of false information about attacks on Biharis in Tamil Nadu through YouTube videos. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala, also dismissed his request to annul his detention under the National Security Act. Nevertheless, the bench has granted Kashyap the right to approach the High Court to seek the relief he is seeking.

“You have a stable state, the state of Tamil Nadu. You circulate anything to create disquiet…we can’t be lending our ears to this.” As soon as the matter was taken, CJI asked, “What is to be done? You produce these fake videos…”, the CJI noted orally.

It is apt to point out here that Tamil Nadu has witnessed a steady rise in law and order incidents since October 2022. The judiciary also chose to ignore the fact that it was Dainik Bhaskar, India’s largest Hindi-language daily newspaper, initially reported on alleged attacks against Biharis in Tamil Nadu using what later appeared to be a fabricated video. Subsequently, YouTuber Manish Kashyap shared this video, believing in the authenticity of the information published by Dainik Bhaskar.

It’s important to highlight that Justice Chandrachud in Zubair’s remarked that the authority to make arrests should be employed judiciously. During Zubair’s bail hearing, he directed the serial liar be granted bail in each of the UP FIRs, emphasizing the need to differentiate between the existence of arrest powers and their discretionary utilization.

He wanted arrest powers to be used sparingly. However, in a significant departure from this stance, Justice Chandrachud declined to provide any relief to YouTuber Manish Kashyap. This is not the only case where the judiciary has applied different yardsticks according to its convenience. Even in the Nupur Sharma case, the judiciary conveniently overlooked the fact that Zubair had shared an edited clip setting loose STSJ mobs that took several innocent lives like that of Umesh Kolhe and Kanhaiyalal Teli who supported Nupur.

Other cases

The judiciary’s anti-Hindu bias was amply evident in Justice KM Joseph’s rant this May when he along with Justice Nagaratna directed that all state governments should take suo motu action against hate speech. However, when the Solicitor General and counsels cornered them citing hate speeches from Muslims, Joseph went on a rant against the state accusing it of being impotent and not acting in time.

He said, “Hate speech will stop the moment politics and religion are segregated” implying that BJP is the reason for all the hate speeches much like how Nupur Sharma was ‘chided’ for merely quoting from a hadith. When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out the Kerala incident in which a boy was made to raise genocidal slogans, Justice Joseph side-stepped and said, “The major problem is when politicians make use of religion for power”. He also slyly mentioned that he didn’t hear any hate speech from the North East, the majority of which the church has brought under its control.

In June 2019, the SC’s double standards were seen after anti-Hindu bigot/journalist Prashant Kanojia was granted bail. On June 11, SC ordered the immediate release of controversial ex-Wire journalist Prashant Kanojia, who was arrested by UP Police after an FIR was lodged against him for spreading rumours and making obscene comments on social media.

Kanojia posted a tweet where he shared a video of a woman giving a love letter to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath. As a Hindu monk who has taken an oath of lifelong celibacy, such slander is especially hurtful for Yogi and Hindus at large.

Kanojia had also made disrespectful comments about Hindus and Hindu Dharma in the past, like calling Dalits who visit Hindu temples brainless animals, saying Hinduism is worthless, and even suggesting harm to Hindu saints. But the SC vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi held that Kanojia’s arrest and detention were wrong and went against the freedom guaranteed by the constitution. HinduPost highlighted the judiciary’s bias in dealing with similar cases.

The judiciary sees hate speech as per its convenience and in compliance with its anti-Hindu bias. Therefore, the judiciary, which takes suo moto cognizance in all cases except where Hindus are victims, chose to ignore Udhaynidhi Stalin’s calls to eradicate Sanatana Dharma. The judiciary has yet to take note of Stalin’s hate speech, despite its lectures on the topic, even after more than 260 eminent citizens including former judges and bureaucrats, having written to CJI Chandrachud urging him to take cognisance of DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remark calling it hate speech.

The message that the judiciary is essentially sending out through its biased stances is that Hindu haters are free to rant as it has their backs covered and would protect them at all costs. As for Hindus freedom of speech and expression is a distant dream.

With the judiciary’s double standards openly on display is it surprising that politicians like Stalin and A Raja, Padres and Mullahs/Maulanas freely abuse Hindu Dharma?