When people call the Supreme Court the most supreme joke of the country

 

When people call the Supreme Court the most supreme joke of the country

If what Uddhav Thackeray allegedly did in Arnab Goswamy case was part of a ‘political gameplan,’ the latter using his influence in the previous administration to sweep a serious crime under the carpet was part of a ‘pollical gameplan’ as well. 

Abetment to suicide u/s 306 IPC is a non-compoundable crime that attracts imprisonment for a term that may extend to 10 years, and in some cases with a fine.

Courts will decide whether Arnab Goswamy can be indicted in law for abetment to suicide or not. However, similar cases were earlier decided by high courts and the Supreme Court differently.

In general, such cases will see the definition of a cause of action undergoing as many interpretations as possible, for the simple reason that an agreement on what is proper evidence of compelling circumstances that lead to the culmination of a crime can have endless explanations. The evidence of a suicide note can perhaps make the ratio decidendi of this case a different one though.

In a way this is the beauty and limitation of the science of jurisprudence: it doesn’t believe in the mathematical symmetry of things. A minor variation in the development of an event can eventually result in major differences in the interpretations – a myriad of possibilities.

Here, however, the focus is on the speed with which the Supreme Court heard the bail plea of Arnab Goswamy. And how this has now attracted criticism from several quarters. SCBA president wrote to the CJI questioning the out-of-the-turn priority accorded to the case while several such cases failed to evoke a similar response from the court in recent times.

While some criticisms hold water, some are made without knowing the complexities involved in the administration of justice and its inherent limitations.

The political system of this country has for long used courts to suppress the voice of dissent. Courts voluntarily partaking in the gameplan of politics too hasn't been uncommon.

In the weird imagination of our nation-state, a over 90% disabled university professor will wield an AK 47 and attack its leaders and establishments; an 80-year-old poet, critic and scholar who is suffering from Alzheimer's, recovering from covid and who can move around only with the help of a catheter and a urine bag will conspire to murder a PM who spends around Rs 3 cr/day for his SPG cover; an 84-year-old who has dedicated his entire life for the uplift of the tribals, and who is also suffering from Parkinson now is such a threat to national security that he will fight the Indian Army with a sipper that the court and investigative agencies need a month to decide whether he can be provided with one or not, and a 60-year-old lady who gave up her US citizenship and prosperous life in there is teaching the tribals and marginalised to make hydrogen bombs.

If this is about people who spent their life to make a difference in the life of others and society, hundreds of journalists too were arrested for doing their duty, recently. While exposing the fraud in the mid-day meal programme cost one dearly, a mere going to report on the brutal rape and killing of a teenager was the crime that another committed.  Siddique Kappan is yet to know what his crime was, or when he can come out of the highhandedness of the state. 

The establishment fears scholars, lawyers, professors, activists and anyone who can think of the evil designs that are in the making and make people aware of it.

Thus goes the unabated saga of persecution. 

The collusion of the executive with the judiciary makes it more horrorsome.

This helps the lapdogs of the government get favourable decisions from the judiciary within no time. While it nonchalantly shrugs off more important issues such as millions of migrant workers walking on roads thousands of kilometres for weeks because of an unscientific and unplanned locked down thrust upon them within a few hours’ notice; a crore or so being denied of their fundamental rights and basic amenities for over a year; EVM discrepancy cases; electoral bond cases; issues of lakhs of citizens having to spend several years in jail as undertrials for petty offences etc., the same the judiciary doesn’t find itself out of place to quickly agree that ‘the rule is bail, not jail,’ when the offender is from the privileged class.

Now, when a comedian finds substance of humour in this, why should he attract criticism from all over?  Why should those who don’t care one bit about fellow beings rise in revolt against him? Why should he be punished for contempt when the Supreme Court itself has ascertained time and again that individual liberty and freedom of expression need to be protected at any cost? Or, are these all theories of convenience that find only selective applications?

However, comic Kunal Kamra, who tweeted that the ‘Supreme Court of this country is the most supreme joke of this country,’ which the attorney general felt showed the apex court and legal administration in poor light wrongly puts the entire blame on judges who decided the case.

In my knowledge, Justice Chadrachud has always upheld the morality of the Constitution. Most of his judgements set the right precedents. I am sure that his judgement in the present case too will have far-reaching consequences as all previous losers on grounds akin to the case in the question now can derive benefits from his observations, sometime in the future, if not immediately for the peculiar situation now. 

All this, not to eulogize Justice Chandrachud, or any other judge but to point to the fact that even when one despises them, the flipside of what they do may have positive results as unintended offshoots. That is the point here.

In this case, but for his one observation that "...Forget this man(Goswami). You may not like his ideology. Left to myself, I will not watch his channel," you don’t have many things to dissociate with him if you know how cases are decided in a court of law.

And then in a lighter vein, this also gives comic Kamra a chance to retort to the court when he is finally charge-sheeted for his offence of contempt that it didn’t have to take cognizance of his tweets if it didn’t like them.

In practice, a judge is left to decide a case before him/her based on the facts supplied to him by the prosecution and the defence. All that he needs to be worried about is to ascertain how the law will reasonably treat these facts and prescribe relief or punishment to an alleged offender. The act of omission in similar cases doesn’t warrant any judge to do the same with the case before him.

Thus, while deciding a case before him Justice Chandrachud, or any other judge in his place, is not bound to apply lapses in similar cases elsewhere. This is where the present situation in the Supreme Court is becoming a bit tricky.  Those cases in which the master of the roster wants the law to be applied correctly, come before people like Justice Chandrachud. Those cases in which the master of the roster wants injustice on people, go to other inJustices who suit the purpose.

In both cases what happens is what is favourable to the executive, and people like Chandrachud and courts share the blame.  Thus, the actual problem is that cases like journalist Kappan’s, migrant labourers,’ Bhima Koregaon, etc., never come before judges like him for speedy disposals.  

The deliberations of a different bench of the court today in journalist Kappen’s case and adjourning it thereafter explain this further (https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-issues-notice-to-up-govton-plea-for-release-of-journalist-siddique-kappan-165915 ).

How to get around such situations in the administration of justice will remain a tough question to deal with as long as high court and apex court judges are not constitutionally barred from post-retirement plum positions in government as well as private services. Those who don't want to retire should be encouraged to build a career in some other areas, not in the judiciary. 

All that said, where we as a people fail is when justice for Akshata Naik and Adnya Naik fails to capture the imagination of the conscience of the nation while Arnab Goswamy-Supreme Court-Kunal Kamra triangle does it amply.