FAIZAN MUSTAFA’S QUESTIONABLE DEFENCE OF PARTISAN INDIAN HIGHER JUDICIARY
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…