Well-orchestrated public statements with high decibel levels seem to be polluting the environment as we await the Ayodhya title suit to be listed before an appropriate bench of the Supreme Court this month when the schedule for hearing will be fixed. Some of the statements are contemptuous of the Supreme Court, while others seek to build a momentum with intent to rally those clamouring for immediate construction of the temple.
On November 28, 2018, senior RSS leader Indresh Kumar warned that the country is not so handicapped for “two-three” judges or the court to “throttle its beliefs” by delaying construction of a Ram temple. This suggests that RSS will not brook any delay in the construction of the temple notwithstanding what the Supreme Court does.
He went on to say that the Chief Justice of India, in deferring the hearing till January, in fact “delayed, denied and disrespected” the sentiments of the people and if the three judges are not ready to deliver justice, they should “think if they want to remain judges or resign”. I guess, delivering justice means justice in tandem with the wishes of RSS.
The site at Ayodhya turned into a fortress. Shiv Sena, with a show of strength, sought to steal a march over BJP by reminding it of the unfulfilled promise of building a temple. The decision of RSS and VHP to hold a mega rally in Delhi last month at Ram LeelaMaidan, where close to 8 lakh people were expected to gather (though it turned out to be a tepid affair), had a two-fold objective. First, to send a not so subtle message to the Supreme Court. Second, to take initial steps to gain popular support and polarise India along religious lines, just before the Lok Sabha elections in 2019.
Along with this is the veiled threat publicly made that the state is not powerless since it will consider intervention through the ordinance route to pre-empt any delay in receiving justice, consistent with the wishes of those who are voicing their protests.
On November 26, 2018, BJP party president Amit Shah stated the ruling party believes that Ram mandir should be constructed in Ayodhya, the place of birth of Lord Ram. He further said “we are expecting a favourable judgment”. On December 19 Shah made yet another provocative statement: “I feel the case should be cleared at the earliest … it is important to a lot of people … sentiments of people across the country.”
HRD minister Prakash Javadekar followed it up by stating on December 24: “Our wish is that there should be a daily hearing on that matter so that we have an early judgment.” The law minister said the same day: “I want to make an appeal to the Supreme Court, not as law minister but as a citizen to fast-track the hearing.” BJP general secretary Ram Madhav also wanted the case on fast track, if not, other options would be explored.
The surge in building a sentiment and issuing veiled threats to the court is meant to convey that if the matter is not heard immediately, other options would be adopted. This interferes with the due process of law.
On a suggestion made to the court that the matter should be heard after the elections in 2019, BJP alleged that counsel attempted to influence the court. But the flurry of statements made in the last several months and now at the cusp of the hearing does not amount to attempting to influence courts. So much for double standards.
These are crass attempts to pressurise the court, nothing short of contempt of court. Those making such statements should be aware of the fact that during the course of the hearing in the high court, an order was passed on August 20, 2002 and modified on February 17, 2003. The order directs that the media should not express its opinion on the court proceedings, or express opinion of any person including any party or his counsel.
On October 30, 2015, the Supreme Court confirmed the order of February 17, 2003, stating that “We further direct that interim directions issued by the high court in terms of its order dated August 20, 2002, as modified by its order of February 17, 2003, continue to be operative pending further orders of this Court.”
It is surprising that the law minister and other distinguished members of this government as well as state governments where BJP is in power, have made public statements in contravention of these orders. This amounts to contempt of court.
The Supreme Court is well aware that a matter which has grave implications for the future of India, whichever way it is decided, should not be subject to public discourse to vitiate the fundamentals of our democratic polity. It is one thing to say in court that it is a title suit; it is another matter when you convert it into an expression of faith to make the proceedings before the court irrelevant, if not decided in a particular way.
Such statements are symptomatic of a mindset that pays scant respect to the rule of law and the majesty of justice. Politics in this mindset is above the law. So are the men who play politics.
Published in Daily Times, January 5th 2019