The Supreme Court (SC) stayed proceedings against Swami Prasad Maurya in the Ramcharitmanas case. While providing relief to the Samajwadi leader, the apex court showed disregard for Hindu religious beliefs, which has come to characterise a large section of the Indian judiciary.

Apex Court gives relief to Maurya in Ramcharitmanas case

The Supreme Court has intervened by issuing a stay on the criminal proceedings against Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya, relating to his hateful statement regarding Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the bench, also summoned a response from the Uttar Pradesh government.

Maurya sought recourse in the apex court, contesting the dismissal of his plea by the Prayagraj (Allahabad) High Court (HC), which had declined his request to quash legal actions initiated in a Pratapgarh district court regarding the remarks made against Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas.

In November 2023, the Prayagraj HC reviewed the chargesheet and accompanying documents, finding ample evidence to establish a prima facie case against Maurya. The court ruled that Maurya should proceed to trial in the lower court, emphasising that public officials must refrain from actions that could disrupt communal harmony.

The FIR stated that after Maurya’s remarks, several leaders nationwide collectively burnt copies of the Ramcharitmanas and employed derogatory language, creating an atmosphere of anger and unrest in the public domain. This led to feelings of hostility and hatred among various factions of the Hindu community.

Double standards of Indian judiciary

Justice Mehta questioned the counsel representing Uttar Pradesh during the hearing, stating, “It is his (Maurya’s) opinion. How is it an offence?” The same court didn’t allow Nupur Sharma to express her opinion, nor did it permit her the same Freedom of Expression (FoE) as the Samajwadi leader.

Moreover, the court passed very uncharitable remarks on Nupur. The court held her ‘single-handedly responsible’ for Islamist violence in the country even though her comments were edited and posted out of context, endangering Nupur’s life. For the apex court, Nupur is loose-tongued, but Maurya repeatedly deliberately hurting Hindu sentiments is ‘free speech.’ This differential treatment raises doubts regarding the judiciary’s neutrality and treating every citizen equally.

Wasn’t the Samajwadi neta seeking ‘cheap publicity’, and isn’t his repeated deliberate targeting of Hindus and Hindu Dharma an attempt to create discord in society? These were the accusations SC judges levied against Nupur, but when it came to Maurya, the court believed the Uttar Pradesh government was being ‘touchy.’

The judiciary’s double standard isn’t surprising because a large section of it remains anti-Hindu. These double standards have emboldened anti-Hindu elements. ‘Comedian’ Munawar Faruqui, who mocked Hindu deities, was granted bail by the SC despite the high court mentioning that Faruqui could not be released.

Another Hinduphobe who seems to be blue-eyed boy of certain senior judges with liberal leanings is POCSO-accused Islamist propagandist Mohammad Zubair, who 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.

The apex court that showed ‘large-heartedness’ to Faruqui, Zubair, and Maurya wasn’t shown by them to Nupur and YouTuber Manish Kashyap. In Manish’s case, the bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala, rejected his plea to consolidate the FIRs filed against him in both Bihar and Tamil Nadu. The bench 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 case, 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.

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. 

Through its stance in Maurya’s case, the judiciary appears to have unfortunately reiterated the message 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.