Although the Indian constitution is secular in theory yet it has the powers to impose certain laws akin to religion. State has the authority to unilaterally shred anything it finds troublesome for state.
Since,Narendar Modi assumed the power in 2014, it became clear to the region that Hindu majoritarianism and BJP’s authoritarianism will triumph over the democratic credentials. The old-buried and utopian idea of “AKHAND BHARAT” will get headway. Muslims and Dalits will further be marginalized. State institutions will be politicized. A dawn of terror, instability and terrorism will haunt the South Asia.
It is worth-noting that every unilateral act passed by parliament which was against any community had the backing of Supreme Court of India which has become highly saffronised.
Saffronisation of Indian Judiciary
Firstly, in tripe talaq case in which a male could divorce his wife just by instating talaq three times ( tripletalaq is the most misunderstood way mostly mooted by conservative religious segments). BJP passed this bill ferociously libeling it as archaic and medieval law. On 22 August 2017, the Indian Supreme Court deemed instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddah) unconstitutional.[6][7][8] Three of the five judges in the panel concurred that the practice of triple talaq is unconstitutional.[9] The remaining two declared the practice to be constitutional while simultaneously asking the government to ban the practice by enacting a law.
According to The Economist, “Constitutional experts said [the judges] legal reasoning fell short of upholding personal rights over religious laws”
Similarly, in Shah Bano case CJY. V. Chandrachud went a far ahead in denouncing Islamic laws as a whole. His remarks hurt the religious sentiments which is even constitutional. “personal law they considered “ruthless in its inequality,”
Secondly, in Ayodha verdict Supreme Court uphold the doctrine of might is right. Babri Masjid was desecrated in broad daylight by Hindu fanatics under infamous L K Advani. According to tiny segment of Hindus Lord Ram was born at the place where Babri Masjid is situated. Akbar though his coterie Mian Mir established Masjid on it. Allahabad High court gave verdict that Land should be divided among three parties; SuniWaqf board, the NirmohiAkhara and Ram Lalla who claimed to be the descendant of Lord Ram.
In paragraph 786 and 798, court observed that Muslims could not produce any result since 1528 that they offered prayers in it. The question is who would be alive by then who could say that I offered or I saw people offering Namaz ? All the written records got burned and scraped at the time of partition.
Moreover, In para 798 of the judgment it is stated, “The exclusion of Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23.12.1949 when the mosque was desecrated by installation of Hindu idols. Ouster of Muslims was not through lawful authority, and Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque that had been constructed well over 450 years ago “.
There should not be honour of one’s own (religious) sect and condemnation of others without any grounds ? Ashoka, Rock Edicts XII, about 250 BC
The case was decided in favor of Ram Mandir on the basis of Archeological Survey of India that beneath Mosque there was structure which was not Islamic.
This case was craftly described by Pratik Sinha ” it is like a bully snatching a child’s sandwich in school, and the teacher giving a ‘balanced judgment’ by allowing the bully to keep the sandwich, and giving the child a slice of dry bread as ‘restitution’.
Thirdly, in Afzal Guru case. It is alleged that he was the master mind behind parliament attack 2001. The Jail Superintendent Sunel Gupta and Surinder Chaudhary describe different version of story. They claim Guru was preparing for UPSC and was too vocal against corruption and vociferously elaborated the agonies of Kashmiris.
The Supreme Court of India decided the capital punishment on the basis of conscience of society not on rule of law.
The supreme court judgment acknowledged the evidence was circumstantial: “As is the case with most conspiracies, there is and could be no evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy.” But then, shockingly, it went on to say: “The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”
Fourthly, on cessation of Article 370 and 35a, Supreme Court has time and again sided with government. Number of times Supreme court has delayed and deferred pleas referring Kashmir.
On Media blackout in Kashmir, Chief Justice RanjanGogoi declaimed that “Media says phone lines will be restored this evening. You can wait.”
Supreme Court of India throughout history have restrained to interfere in executive matters if the ruling party has 2/3 majority.
Fifthly, when the Delhi was shrouded in chaos and disturbance and Delhi police stood as mere spectator when Muslims were forced to chant Jai Mata Di under the police boots and Muslim shops were looted. (In Union Territories Police is managed by Center).
Justice Muralidhar chastised police, ordered FIR against inciters who were associated with BJP and unmasked the heinous role of BJP government.
As a result, Justice Muralidhar was transferred by BJP government in midnight.
Indian Judiciary has succumbed to the forces of hatred and bigotry.
The writer is freelancer