Ajeet Bharti on Judiciary
Journalist Ajeet Bharti has raised several important questions regarding the judicial set-up in Mumbai. The collegium system in practice at present is a means to propagate nepotism while showing no accountability. There are more than four crores pending cases that require the attention of the judiciary but isn’t being attended to.
Judges often casually throw around the ‘constitutional idea of India’ which has no meaning and is used only as a propaganda. Essentially, the constitution is made for the country but the country isn’t made for the constitution. The constitution is subject to changes and amendments must be made in keeping with the changing needs of the nation.
The apex court has time and again interfered in the decisions of the central government thereby imposing the tyranny of the unelected on the citizens of the nation. Bharti has pointed out that it is the corrupt judges who have caused a downfall of the judicial system and not ‘trolls’ as CJI Ramana would like us to believe. Every citizen has a right to ask questions of the judiciary.
We have seen how the judiciary has often displayed its double-standards. A comparison of the cases its takes suo moto cognizance of and instances where it maintains a convenience or simply looks away would give us a fair idea of what ails the country’s judicial system.
Some of the judgments are outrageous to say the least and by terming dissenters ‘trolls’, the CJI wants to stifle the voices of the common citizens. When a judge says “It is clear that offence committed by appellant neither falls under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act nor under Section 9(M) of POCSO Act because there is penetrative sexual assault in the present case as the appellant has put his penis into mouth of victim. Putting penis into mouth does not fall in the category of aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault. It comes into category of penetrative sexual assault which is punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act,” why shouldn’t citizens not express their outrage on social media?
It must also be highlighted that judgments are based on who is approaching the courts, in other words, while the judiciary brings in ‘freedom of expression’ when religious sentiments of Hindus are hurt, the same advice is not given to secular, Islamists, and others. The judges appear to be playing to the gallery and media circus rather than focusing on delivering justice through their judgements.
Judiciary terms dissenters ‘trolls’
“An area of grave concern for the judiciary is the increasing attacks on judges. Physical attacks on judicial officers are on the rise. There are also attacks on the judiciary on social media. These attacks appear to be sponsored and synchronised. Law enforcement agencies must deal with them effectively. The government is expected to create a secure environment to let judicial officers work effectively”, CJI NV Ramana said while speaking at the constitution day celebration organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
Social media is a platform for the common people to put forward their views. Dissent doesn’t amount to trolling. Judges and judgments aren’t beyond questioning particularly when numerous important cases are pending and undertrials are languishing in jails across the country.
What is dissent in case of Shaheen Bagh and ‘farmer’ protests doesn’t turn to ‘trolling’ if common citizens demand accountability from judges who scuttled NJAC only because it was inconvenient for them. Bharat’s judiciary is also proven itself to be anti-Hindu on more than one occassion. We allowed our education and legal systems to continue the way British used to run it.
If judges are uncomfortable with common people asking questions of them, then they should probably ignore such opinions just like they want Hindus to not read a book or watch a movie that hurts their religious sentiments. It is high time the judiciary was held accountable rather than being allowed to bulldoze the executive and muzzle voices that speak the truth.