Supreme Court

{Dr. Shamsul Islam, Political Science professor at Delhi University (retired).}


Every Indian, not Muslims alone, needs an independent judiciary Faizan Mustafa, a Professor of law and vice-chancellor of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR University of Law Hyderabad established by the Legislative Assembly of Telangana) in a recent write-up (‘Muslims and Judiciary: We do not have Muslim or non-Muslim judges in India’, the Indian Express, July 8, 2022) disclosed that in 1997 he refused to undertake a project on the role of Muslim judges as it was against the ingrained ethos of Indian judiciary; the non-partisan character. However, the current write-up dealt with the issue of treatment of Muslims by the Supreme Court (SC); Faizan presenting the defence of the Supreme Court of India. This write-up surely was in response to the mounting criticism in India and abroad that the Indian judiciary, specially, its higher echelons have succumbed to the majoritarian pressures and were being ‘managed’ by the RSS-BJP rulers committed to Hindutva. CLAIM: JUDGES ARE SENSITIVE TO MUSLIM ISSUES Faizan stressed that “Judges have been not only fair but also sensitive to Muslim causes”. It is a problematic statement. Are Muslim causes not also Indian causes? To take few contemporary examples: Are Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, indefinite incarceration of hundreds of youth/intellectuals/journalists under terror laws, protests against CAA and subsequent repression of the activists, bulldozing of residences and protests against abrogation of Article 370 only Muslim issues? These issues much maligned as ‘Muslim’ issues, in fact, test Indian polity’s constitutional commitment towards democracy, social-political-religious equality, secularism, federalism, Rule of Law (even Rule by Law) and independent judiciary. REALITY: INBUILT HOSTILITY Faizan’s defence of the SC started with the defence of Justice D Y Chandrachud whom he described as a “scholar judge”. Faizan stated: “On June 20 [2022], Justice D Y Chandrachud was asked about the judiciary’s treatment of Muslims at King’s College London. Justice Chandrachud didn’t take offence to the question but answered it politely…our judges do not have the litigant’s religious identity in mind while dispensing justice.” As another proof of the non-partisan character of the SC, he referred to the 2019 SC judgment in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri…

No Image

No time to ‘celebrate’ on the Supreme Court’s stay on three farm laws

The Supreme Court has been unusually aggressive with the government on the three farm bills. The Chief Justice of India made tough-talking about this and said that he is going to form the ‘expert’ committee and will stay the implementation of the bill. And today, the court decided that a four-member panel will speak to the farmers and the government. The members are Mr Bhupinder Singh Maan, Bhartiya Kisan Union (Maan), Anil Gahlawat, Shetkari Sanghthana, Ashok Gulati, agricultural scientist and Pramod Joshi, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). If you scan newspapers of the last two months, you will find most of these gentlemen I there is no gender justice here), have been very vocal about the new farm bills which the government brought. They wanted to get it implemented. Who is Bhupinder Singh Maan? Bhupinder Singh Maan is the president of Bhartiya Kisan Union which had actually supported the government openly. The only difference is that they wanted the government to ensure Minimum Support Price. Who is Ashok Gulati? Ashok Gulati is a well-known columnist and is visible in the media most of the time vociferously supporting the bill. Shetkari Sagnthan has always been in support of farm reform and just have a look at the speeches of Anil Gahalawat then you will find how he feels that the current agriculture bill is more beneficial for farmers because it gives them ‘opportunity’ to a variety of places and not merely the Mandis which are going to get demolished after the bills. Basically, there is a farm lobby which feels that it can deal with the corporate houses and get a better deal but these are isolated farmers. Frankly speaking, the whole question of the corporatisation of agriculture sector is an assault on not merely farmers but on India’s Dalit Bahujan Adivasi population as it hurt them the most. Can small and marginal farmers bargain with Ambanis and Adanis? How do you expect the small and marginal farmers to bargain with Ambanis and Adanis? They can’t even bargain with local dealers and the result is farmers suicide every year as…

Shiela Dikshit

Fighting is no solution : Dikshit tells Kejriwal

Soon after the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the issue of the transfer and posting of Delhi government officers, Congress city unit chief Sheila Dikshit on Thursday advised Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal that fighting is no solution

New Delhi: Interim CBI Chief M. Nageswara Rao during the three-day workshop - "synergy programme" - organised by the Art Of Living, at CBI headquarter in New Delhi on Nov 10, 2018. (Photo: IANS)

CBI’s Nageswara Rao held guilty of contempt. This is also the first time in 70 years!

CBI’s Nageswara Rao held guilty of contempt. This is also the first time in 70 years! New Delhi, Feb 12. The Supreme Court on Tuesday held former acting- chief of CBI M. Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court, sentencing him till the rising of the apex court for the day and fined him Rs 1 lakh for transferring an agency officer probing the Muzaffarpur shelter home case despite the court’s embargo against the transfer of then Additional Director A.K. Sharma who was heading the investigation team. Did you like this news / article? Please also comment and share in the comment box so that more people can talk Please subscribe to our YouTube channel