Judiciary: The Custodian Of The Fundamental Rights

Judiciary in India is independent in nature. Judiciary is independent of legislature and executive. This characteristic makes India a federal state. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that Article 32 is the soul of the Constitution of India. It is because this article entitles a citizen to knock on the doors of judiciary if his or her fundamental rights are violated or infringed up on and get his or her rights back. In a country, where judiciary works in original manner, happiness and development reign while in a country where judiciary has come under the undue influence of legislature and executive, there are cent percent chances that the country will be devoid of development. Fundamental Rights are trampled upon this country. In this scenario, India is a live example. Since 2014, there have been so many incidents that make it clear that there is something seriously wrong with the judicial process of India. Some of them will be discussed in the coming lines. Firstly, in case of the Babri Masjid, all the laws were trampled upon. In 1984, the statues were forcefully placed there. Before that, the doors of the Masjid were thrown upon. In 1992, in a broad daylight, the Masjid was demolished. Certain RSS-BJP members took a rath yatra in order to salvage this land from the foreigners. What did the Supreme Court do? They only produced statements. Moreover, they acted like a mute spectator. The Muslims were disappointed by the behavior of the custodian of law and order. I want to know how many accused were taken to task who demolished the Babri-Masjid. No one was taken to task. They are roaming free. They give ultimatums of destroying other Masjids as well. What should have been the role of the Supreme Court? They should have given the verdict according to the laws prescribed. They should have arrested the culprits. But the irony is that the judges of the Supreme Court along with the Chief Justice of India are appointed by the ruling government. They can never take any independent decision. At the time of oaths, their wings are clipped and they merely remain the caretakers of the institution, the Supreme Court. The balance of justice in the Supreme Court has tilted towards injustice.
There is a need to put back Indian Judiciary on track. It is the custodian of the fundamental rights. It should remain the custodian.
Secondly, some judges of the Supreme Court threw a video conference against the incumbent Chief Justice of India at that time. I think it never happens in any part of the world. It should be kept in mind that the Chief Justice of India, along with the judges of the Supreme Court, with the President, can not be removed from posts. It needs a special procedure and when the situation reaches that stage and it is necessary to remove any of them, then the impeachment process begins against him or her in the Parliament, after introducing a resolution. But in the Indian case, judges went against the Chief Justice of India in a public and made offensive statements against the integrity of judiciary. It shows that not something but everything is wrong with the Indian judiciary. Thirdly, the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, after his retirement, was made a member of the Rajya Sabha. In this regard, the Constitution of India clearly states that any Chief Justice of India can not hold the office of public importance. But in India, the concept of Constitutionalism is confined to books. In reality, it doesn’t imply. There are rumours that Ranjan Gogoi may become the Chief Minister of Assam. This kind of gesture blots the sacred image of judiciary. Fourthly, a case was filed against Ranjan Gogoi by a woman when Ranjan Gogoi tried to assault him. Truth is not open yet. But whatever the truth is, the judiciary has taken a severe hit in this way. Morality of judges is now being questioned. It, at the end of the day, reduces the chances of justice. Fifthly and lastly, the abrogation of Article 370 and 35-A is still undecided in the Supreme Court. A year has passed since the abrogation of Article 370 but there still seems no silver lining on the horizon. What kind of justice is this? I am not an anti-national. But I am entitled to ask the judges of the Supreme Court to tell me please that an erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir was put under the severest curfew and all the channels of communications were barred, why our petitions are not taken seriously. Are not we human beings? Constitutionally and being a diverse land of religions, cultures, languages, etc., I am proud to be an Indian but being an Indian, we are treated like anti-national. There is a need to put back Indian Judiciary on track. It is the custodian of the fundamental rights. It should remain the custodian.
(The author is a freelancer and regularly writes for “Kashmir Horizon”. Views are her own) [email protected]