Over the years, the Apex Court of India along with the other prominent establishments of the society has upheld its secrecy, and the solidarity exhibited by the citizens for a certain community of a society!
In the verdict of the Supreme Court of India, we all saw how the bench decided on, not to uncover the internal incidents and resisted bringing about statements on judges publically and condemned Prashant Bhushan for his comments on corruption in the judiciary.
Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi presided over his own sexual harassment trial.
It’s been ages since we have been reading about the pending cases in the various courts of the judicial institution. How justice is delayed, how time-consuming trials are and how great muscle and power at junctures reverse the verdict of the trials moreover. It is not the first time when the Supreme Court has appeared with a similar judgement.
We have witnessed identical happenings in earlier years also; when the previous sitting justice, CJI of India was charged with sexual harassment and he came to be the judge of the trial during hearing sessions.
Later the bench declared charges on Ranjan Gogoi to be untrue. The attitude which the Supreme Court exhibited towards the allegations of sexual harassment, brought in scepticism against the establishment of the Supreme Court of India, and the crisis prevailing on the democratic essence of our institutions. But this hasn’t been the only case, we have seen how the Apex Court of India has done it previously too.
A comparable example of the land acquisition case involving Justice Arun Mishra made headlines too. Amidst the calls for recusal, he maintained his own verdict on the land acquisition case, and explained accepting the plea for recusal will “sound a death knell” for the “independent system of justice delivery”.
What compels the most prominent organisations of the world’s largest democracy to deny the further hearings and inhibit the hearings of their internal members to themselves. In a quite straightforward and the very initial explanation of democracy we read up Democracy as “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Why do the judges, while residing on the topmost hierarchy of an organisation, restrict their subject to the courtrooms? Why are the arguments carried out within the locked doors and why don’t any recordings take place? After attaining a specific position, aren’t they accountable to the people of the country?
In a parallel structure, we have noticed how the military judiciaries are divided, likewise. They can define their justice pattern but the disparities in the military courtroom have undergone their own share of contempt. How at duration, justice has been denied and the lower grade officers endured more regarding the higher grade authorities.
The circumstances between Prashant Bhushan’s (pictured above) and Justice Karnan’s contempt of court cases were wildly different.
Aren’t people answerable to the event and occurrences continuing in the society? Or the prosecutions and punishments of a regular human are the only active discussed subject? Our institutions have to present itself with an answer for every query that lies in the mind of an ordinary man. The current judgement of the Supreme Court of India has put forward uncertainty about the existing functioning of the institution, the status of the democratic system of our country and the possibility forward.
However, while criticising the Supreme Court of India, how adequately have we criticised ourselves for our selected solidarity? The backing surfacing Prashant Bhushan is praiseworthy. But, where was the similar support when Justice Karnan was sentenced to six months in jail?
When Prashant Bhushan himself, cheered the judgement on a similar subject, Contempt of Court. When he tweeted and approved the judgement over the uniform case without requesting for further analysis. What was Bar Association of India doing at that juncture, where was the widespread resentment from the citizens on Twitter? Or these stands are exclusive only for the privileged sections of a specific community?
Justice Karnan was one of the limited Dalit judges that we have in our nation in the upper hierarchy, he has been on records for underlining the disparities between the branches of the judiciary. We have caught a glimpse of his journey from the judge of the Madras High Court to be the one of Calcutta High Court, how he was transferred, what incidents occurred at his term, how he was condemned to six months of imprisonment.
A percentage of us would defend ourselves by explaining, we weren’t active formerly and Twitter wrath wasn’t a huge trend back then. Regardless, this won’t pass the charge. We have observed how the people from the lowermost caste structure are treated throughout the country, not by all but clearly by the majority. The solidarity has been unfailingly for one section of the community most of the times.
From Ambedkar to Justice Karnan, we as a society, honestly, haven’t changed much.
We grow from our understandings, we comprehend from our familiarities, and our stances get constructed in that manner. I am not saying circumstances have been manageable for Mr Bhushan but the circumstances would have been terrible for Mr Karnan. And we have to recognize that, as a society, and amend the nature of the caste structure along with the various prevailing patterns of the society. Not when our heart desires. Not when the table has changed course. The battle isn’t solely to uphold the Democracy, the effort should be to get rid of all the wrongs of the society.
If you believe what’s going on is awry, if you sense the Apex Court of India sets itself, before the citizens, if you see Contempt of Court restricts our freedom of speech…then speak up, irrespective of your favouritism, privileges and specific solidarity.