“Apart from Ram, the Supreme Court has been and continues to be the BJP’s staunchest ally.”
Narendra Modi, India’s prime leader, defied seven decades of legal precedent. In order to end Jammu & Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status, his government abolished the state assembly, divided the state in half, and delegated the new sections to the national government in Delhi as “union territories.” In many parts of India, the decision was met with jubilation, but in the former state, it was met with rage. It naturally raised serious constitutional issues as well.
The BJP’s hypocrisy is shocking. Brazen
Apart from Jaitley, who was then the party’s president and a cabinet minister, Nitin Gadkari also declared in September 2012, “I say this with a deep sadness that it is predetermined for Supreme Court and High Court justices which Commission they will join even before they retire.”
By sending Gogoi to Rajya Sabha, the Modi government perfects the Congress’ game. How will Ranjan Gogoi’s term as Chief Justice of India (CJI) be judged in the future? Honourable judges must decide whether or not to keep their oath and conduct their duty “without fear or favour.”
The Indian President’s decision to appoint former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi to the Rajya Sabha demonstrates that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s political hypocrisy has become a matter of religion.
For a party whose one-time legal hawk, the late Arun Jaitley, once said: “There are two kinds of judges: those who know the law and those who know the Law Minister,” and that “two years after retirement” this is required, this decision establishes that proclamation—or even intention—is not a practice for the party.
Had the Modi government compensated former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi for good decisions?
When the BJP was in opposition, it promised judicial independence, but this was just rhetoric, and it hasn’t been implemented since the party took office.
While Justice Gogoi had not been assigned to a ‘Commission,’ his brother, Air Marshall (Retd) Anjan Kumar Gogoi, was appointed to the North Eastern Council (NEC) as a full-time non-official membe. Of course, it will be argued that the retired Air Force officer’s family connections should not bar him from being appointed if he is regarded appropriate and capable. However, the appointment was far too coincidental, especially in light of developments in the former CJI’s career.
This is the second time the BJP has elevated a retired Chief Justice to a high-ranking position. P. Sathasivam, a retired Chief Justice of India, was named Governor of Kerala in September 2014, just months after Narendra Modi was elected Prime Minister. The former chief justice was the first non-political figure to be appointed to the position.
Among the cases that Justice Sathasivam presided over was the one in which he presided over a bench that gave much-needed respite to Gujarat’s then-home minister, Amit Shah, in the Tulsiram Prajapati custodial homicide case. A second FIR or police complaint against Shah in the fake encounter death case was dismissed by the court, stating that it was connected to the larger Sohrabuddin Sheikh Murder case and hence did not need to be separated. When asked if it was a pay-to-play arrangement, Justice Sathasivam rejected it before adding, “Any other judge would have issued the same verdict.” It is public knowledge that no other judge went on to become Governor.
The appointments of Justice Sathasivam and Justice Gogoi, at the very least, have diminished the dignity of the Chief Justice’s office. However, the harm is considerably worse because it calls into question the fairness of court decisions.
The BJP will, as usual, be generous in giving ‘previous evidence’ of comparable appointments to claim that this is the rule rather than the exception. Justice S Fazl Ali, the first Supreme Court judge deputed to a Raj Bhavan in Orissa, in May 1952, to the unusual case of Justice Baharul Islam, who began his career as an advocate in the Assam High Court in the early 1950s and went on to serve for a decade in the Supreme Court, will undoubtedly be dug up by the ruling party faithful.
Following this, Indira Gandhi’s government nominated him as a judge in the same court where he had previously practiced. By 1979, Justice Islam had risen to become Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, and he retired after only a few months. He was controversially appointed to the Supreme Court of India by the Gandhi regime on 4 December 1980, an unprecedented nomination for a retired Judge.
Following that, Justice Islam heard the case of Jagannath Mishra, the then-Congress chief minister of Bihar, in the Patna Urban Cooperative Bank scam, and granted him critical relief.
Following that, the judge resigned from the Supreme Court and returned to the Rajya Sabha.
When allegations of sexual harassment were made against Justice Gogoi, rumours about the Ayodhya case surfaced in a private conversation. The republic can have faith only in judges who “have no past to hide” and are “not concerned about securing their futures,” according to a senior advocate at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India has requested to examine the case of an infant who died after being brought to the Shaheen Bagh protests suo moto (on its own). On Monday, it will hold a second hearing on the traffic-blocking protesters.
The Supreme Court has not heard the case of 25 protestors who were slain (or rather murdered) by police. The Supreme Court has not heard the case in which the Uttar Pradesh government began illegally seizing the property of persons challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act without due process. The Supreme Court has remained silent in the case of students in Bidar who were repeatedly grilled by police over a school play disparaging of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The issue of Kashmiri politicians being imprisoned without accusation or trial has not been examined by the Supreme Court. Despite making some religious noises about it, the Supreme Court has not granted Kashmiris the ability to use the internet then, though it made some pious noises about this in January.
The CAA has not been delayed by the Supreme Court, despite warnings to the judges that it could cause major chaos and violence. The Supreme Court has failed to provide justice to 1000 individuals mostly Muslims, imprisoned without charge in Assam’s concentration camps, families torn apart with no way out. When the Modi government announced that all non-Muslims in these camps would be released, the Supreme Court remained silent. Only the Muslims would be imprisoned.
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on when the Muslims who are not listed in Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) will be able to prove their citizenship. The Supreme Court has yet to hear the important case. The truth is that India’s Supreme Court has a class bias and it takes whatever the govt says at face value.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger of the US Supreme Court made a profound statement that “A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and it is for the subordinate judiciary by its action and the high court by its appropriate control to ensure it.”
That is why it was once correctly said, “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens you can never regain their respect and esteem.”
