Opinions not justifying judicial proceedings soundly are slowly creeping into the veins of the Supreme Court. In recent times, the subsidiary statements issued by its judges in accordance with the main pronouncements have left us with a disillusioned picture of the omnipresent sanctity we generally associate them with.
In association with the Ajmal Kasab death sentence, justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad have spoken high of Indian Muslims. To quote “no Indian Muslim would even think of venting his grievance like an animal, killing, maiming and wounding innocent people; his own countrymen. This is because he is not only loyal to his faith and community but equally loves his country and fellow countrymen.” This might sound spiriting to keep the national integrity flowing but, at the same time it undermines the intentions of Muslims present in other parts of the world. It has been absolutely imprudent to rip them apart and present them in bad light for the sake of vehemently rebuking Ajmal Kasab’s deeds. Communal categorization is something that they should immediately do away with.
In the 2G Case, justice was delayed and hence denied, as universally stated. According to an Indian Express report, Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy had to wait 16 months before he could hear from the Prime Minister’s office. Only then could he ‘seek sanction‘ against A Raja for his role in the 2G scam.
In yet another incident that did not fail to portray a display of unnecessary interference was the Haj Subsidy, where, a rather foolish remark was made on Muslims not being aware of its nuances. Is it mandatory to mess up religious sentiments with official decorum? Time and again, the secularity of our country has to be dissected at various angles, so much so, that what remains is contempt and rebuke in the hearts and minds of its people.
In the Salwa Judum case, similar politically heated words were made. So, on the whole, it wouldn’t be wrong to chastise this new breed of events being spawned in the dictionary of highly able and dignified people, who are at the top of the judicial ladder. The message is aptly clear. We would like to confine ourselves for more dramatic reads to the editorial columns and journals. We would love to see a comprehensive judgement coming from them. That would whole-heartedly serve the purpose of its supposed existence.