What Does Indian Judiciary Offer Indians Really?

Integrity is a strange thing. It matters only when standing by it is the toughest.

In other times, it does not even matter.

But when it does matter, then abandoning it is akin to not having claimed its existence ever. Because, irrespective of our self-assessment, it never was present anyway.

Your worth, you see, is not built upon the sophistication of your arguments. But by the worth of your actions. Your actions decide whether you can be trusted with people's lives... or nothing at all.

If you have carefully crafted your own image of one full of integrity and greatness on the back of force and fear, then every challenge to your word becomes an existential threat to you.

Even your democracy takes on another form.

That of unbridled tyranny.

When that happens, you need introspection. Not doubling down.

Please Contribute to Drishtikone

What we do takes a lot of work. So, if you like our content and value the work that we are doing, please do consider contributing to our expenses. Choose the USD equivalent amount in your own currency you are comfortable with.

When Guardians of Democracy Sabotaged Freedoms for a Few Paisas and a Post

On 12 June 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha found Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices. Sinha declared the election verdict in the Rae Bareilly constituency "null and void", and barred Gandhi from holding elected office for six years.

On June 24th June 1975, a Vacation Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice VR Krishna Iyer gave "interim relief" to Indira Gandhi.

And then on June 25, 1975, then-President of India, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, declared a state of emergency pushed by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. (Source: Firstpost)

Within a day none of the arguments that Justice Iyer would have given on the merits of his judgment with conditions.

That was the last time that a Supreme Court judge gave a corrupt Indian leader relief "with conditions" - it ended up in the destruction of Indian democracy.

How Judiciary Abandoned Indians

Democracy is not saved in debates or imagined narratives. It is saved when every right and freedom of the citizens is suspended and you are called upon to side with such a populace. And you decidedly and with all your conscience at your command, go with the tyrant who crushed freedom.

It was the landmark case of Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla that passed into eternal ignominy in Indian judicial history.

It was more commonly referred to as the Habeas Corpus case. The bench held that a person's right to not be unlawfully detained (i.e. habeas corpus) can be suspended in the interest of the State.

Supreme Court of India decided this on April 28th, 1976. The bench that presided over the case was composed of five eminent judges. These included Chief Justice A.N. Ray, and Justices H.R. Khanna, M.H. Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud, and P.N. Bhagwati.

Only one of these justices dissented - Justice HR Khanna.

The others affirmed the suspension of all freedoms and rights of the Indian citizens in the interest of a tyrannical government. All of these constitutional cowards (there is no other way to describe their betrayal) then went on to become judicial luminaries and Chief Justices.

Only one judge dissented against the rape of Indian Democracy in the Habeas Corpus Case. Barring him, everyone else who backed the rape became India's Chief Justice. That was the reward of pusillanimity in the face of tyranny!

This was the story of how the highest and most powerful of India's judges knelt shamelessly at the altar of tyranny to line their pockets and get certificates proclaiming "Judicial Greats."

Everyone knew what the truth was. Everyone understood the phony sanctimony of the saviors of the very foundations of India's democracy that they had bartered for a few rupees and a post. Even the New York Times called their perfidy out.

If India ever finds its way back to the freedom and democracy that were proud hallmarks of its first eighteen years as an independent nation, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H. R. Khanna of the Supreme Court., It was Mr. Justice Khanna who spoke out fearlessly and eloquently for freedom this week dissenting from the Court's decision upholding the right of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Government to imprison political opponents at will and without court hearings. (Source: "Fading Hope in India" / New York Times)

That is all you need to know about the security of Indian society when the "shit really hits the fan" with the judiciary we have in place.

Another Interim Relief Moment

On May 10th, 2024, a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, more than a month after he was arrested in a corruption case, for campaigning.

Quite honestly, there was a battle between the Rule of Law and the Political Privileges of a corrupt politician. And once again, the Supreme Court of India abandoned the Rule of Law to affirm the Political Privilege of a tyrannical corrupt person.

The charges against the person from the Enforcement Directorate were extremely serious. The charges are extremely serious.

Let us break them down clearly.

Conspiracy and Corruption in Liquor Policy Formulation: Kejriwal is accused of being directly involved in the formulation of a liquor policy intended to favor certain individuals or groups, specifically demanding kickbacks from a group referred to as the 'South Group' in exchange for policy favors.

Use of Proceeds of Crime in Election Campaign: The ED alleges that the proceeds of the crime generated from the liquor policy were used by Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to fund their election campaign in Goa in 2022

Money Laundering: Kejriwal is described as the kingpin and key conspirator in the Delhi liquor scam, using his position as Chief Minister to facilitate money laundering activities that benefited his party

Destruction of Evidence and Non-cooperation: The ED has also accused Kejriwal of willful disobedience of legal summonses, as he allegedly failed to appear for questioning despite being summoned nine times. Additionally, there are accusations of huge destruction of electronic evidence which purportedly made the investigation challenging

Snooping on ED Officials: Another significant charge includes the misuse of authority by Kejriwal to allegedly snoop on ED officials, which points to a misuse of power to interfere with the investigation process

This is besides the open announcement of the Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu that his terrorist organization sent money for Khalistani backing to Kejriwal. He alleged that a sum of $16.70 million was sent from Khalistanis in the US, Canada, the UK, the Middle East, Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

Here is the video.

Let us see what transpired in the court hearing.

The Hearing

In the Supreme Court hearing on May 7th, 2024, the possibility of granting interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was discussed, particularly in light of the upcoming Delhi elections on 25 May 2024. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the bail, with representatives arguing that Kejriwal's involvement in a liquor scam negated his eligibility for interim release. Kejriwal's counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued for bail to ensure a fair electoral process, highlighting inconsistencies in witness statements and the evolving nature of the case against Kejriwal.

The court criticized the ED for the prolonged investigation duration, emphasizing the high threshold for arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which requires substantial evidence of guilt. The discussion also touched on the fundamental right to freedom of movement and the exceptional circumstances that could justify interim bail, such as the forthcoming election.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju presented evidence of Kejriwal's alleged criminal activities. At the same time, Singhvi argued that denying bail would undermine democratic principles and the basic structure of the Constitution. The court clarified that granting bail would not imply a distinction between politicians and non-politicians but would consider the unique context of the election.

Justice Khanna indicated that if bail were granted, Kejriwal would be restricted from performing official duties as the case is ongoing. Singhvi assured that Kejriwal would abstain from signing official documents if released. The court plans to decide on the bail before the summer vacation, with Kejriwal's judicial custody extended until 20 May 2024 by a Special Bench of the Delhi High Court.

Before we go further, let us understand the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Basic Structure Doctrine - A Mechanism to Rob Indians of Their Representation in Governance

It all began with the landmark case of the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala - the largest bench in Indian judicial history decided that "reasonable abridgment" of Fundamental Rights can be effected in the public interest by the parliament.  However, the Basic Structure of the Constitution cannot be changed.  

This case established the "Basic Structure Doctrine" within the Indian constitutional framework, serving as a foundation for limiting the previously unrestricted powers of Parliament to amend the Constitution.

Basically, the Judiciary decided on its own that they and not the people and their representatives had more say in how the country was to be governed when it came to the crunch! Those, who did not have the gumption to stand for the people when it really mattered, unilaterally usurped the right of complete self-governance from people and installed the judiciary, which is answerable to none, without any apparent restrictions.

One case at a time after that, the power of self-governance by people in a democracy continued to be curtailed by the self-appointed guardians of the freedoms of Indian people.

So use of the "Basic Structure" argument by Singhvi was a clever ploy.

He was arguing that Kejriwal's arrest and the charges against him, if politically motivated, could violate the basic structure by undermining democratic principles and the intended checks and balances within the government. That is where he wanted judiciary to go over the functioning and working of the Enforcement Directorate and encroach upon its powers.

To argue against this, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju presented a series of witness statements to the Bench, asserting that there were no inconsistencies in the evidence.

Now let us understand one more fundamental issue.

Why was Kejriwal really granted bail?

Supreme Court laid it out like this.

“It is no gain saying that General Elections to Lok Sabha is the most significant and an important event this year….General Elections supply the vis viva to a democracy. Given the prodigious importance, we reject the argument raised on behalf of the prosecution that grant of interim bail/release on this account would be giving premium of placing the politicians in a benefic[ial] position compared to ordinary citizens of this country.” 

The Enforcement Directorate argued that recognizing the "right to campaign" as a special right is violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

What made this situation "extraordinary"?

Providing Corruption an Opening to Expand?!

In deciding this and offering the arguments in favor of the interim bail, that the Supreme Court did, it may have opened up a Pandora's Box in future with respect to how the bail cases may be approached going further.

More importantly, those new nuances that may emanate from this small opening granted by the justices in this case, may further curtail the executive powers, and thus the right to self-govern by the people in a democracy. In favor of a rule by the judiciary.

So, Soutik Banerjee argues in this take on the hearing that the Supreme Court's interpretation while releasing Kejriwal on interim bail, despite the gravity of his alleged crimes, was to add sanctity and credibility to the democratic electoral process.

If this was indeed the track of thinking that the Supreme Court followed then the Indian people need to sit up and think.

For, the Court is suggesting that those charged with damning corruption charges while in democratic office should be put on the same pedestal as those who uphold the law in their work when it comes to political rights.

This thinking is setting the stage up in the current polity for normalizing corruption as a politically expedient and acceptable characteristic of governance.

It is a small opening, within the law for bail, to brush off corruption as an irrelevant crime and not fully accord to it the gravity that it deserves. That it is a crime against the people using executive power while undermining democracy.

And, this is not the first time that the courts have chosen to normalize corruption.

Even in the case of Electoral Bonds, the Chief Justice of India, in a bizarre argument, provided an opening to expansion in rampant corruption by brushing aside the fundamental issue at hand - the use of unaccounted black money - when it came to the political processes.

This is what the court argued.

The Supreme Court has observed that the purpose of curbing black money is not a sufficient justification to anonymise the identities of donors and the details of the contributions in the electoral bonds scheme. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the anonymous electoral bonds scheme violated the right to information of a voter guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and struck down the same as unconstitutional. (Source: "Electoral Bonds Not The Only Way To Curb Black Money, There're Alternative Means Which Are Less Restrictive : Supreme Court" / Livelaw)

By saying that "Curbing black money is not a sufficient justification to anonymise the identities of donors and the details of the contributions in the electoral bonds scheme" - the court essentially said that anonymity of the donors in the knowledge of the public (for this information was available in the system) far outweighed the curbs on damning use of unaccounted black money!

Sophistication of semantics aside, there is something fundamentally amiss here.

It is a cruel joke on the Indian populace by an insular judiciary.

What Does an Insular Indian Judiciary Really Offer the Indian People?

Why do we call the judiciary as insular?

Here are some numbers that we will use to evaluate the impact of the judiciary on the Indian population.

• The total number of Indian households in 2022 = (315 million) 32 crore (Source: Wikipedia)
• Middle-class households in India (in 2020-21): 31% (Source: Times of India)
• So the total middle-class population in India (based on the above numbers) = 432 million
• Middle-class households in India = 97.3 million
• The total number of cases pending in the Indian courts is well over 51 million!
• Percentage of poor households in India = 25% (Source: Statista)
• Number of poor households in India = ~79 million
• Total number of households above poverty = 236 million (315 mn - 79 mn)

The situation is worsening by the day.

And, this delay in justice directly leads to undermining the rule of law and meting out injustice to people.

It was the sanest advice one has ever received in life.

Yet, it was a grand statement on the state of the Indian judiciary and its workings.

It was not just built ground up by the British for injustice to Indians, but the Indian judiciary post-independence has made matters worse.

Not everyone has a court case pending. Those who do can rarely get out of its tentacles.

As my personal experience suggested, it is better to accept injustice than hope for justice.

When 20% of the population is facing the specter of injustice at the hands of the judiciary, while the judiciary is busy shoring up its own powers to govern people, then isn't it time that people start asking the most basic question:

What is in it for me?

It is after all a very valid question to ask.

If the vast majority of Indians and their rights are to be undermined while the judiciary is busy opening up ways for corruption in the country to be rewarded and has shown that it does not have the spine to stand up for the basic freedoms of the most common man and woman when it really mattered most, then what is the real value of judiciary indeed?

I am not saying that we discard the judiciary. I am saying that such an important pillar needs introspection.

Deep introspection.

If its sine qua non is not a service of the people, then what is it?

Because from the numbers and the focus of the judicial cases, it does not seem as if the priorities of the Indian courts is where it should be - the benefit to the people!

No wonder Indians believe that Police, and then the Judiciary are the most corrupt institutions in the country!

And, I am not saying something that is not understood. It is.

One Supreme Court Justice clearly admitted it.

Supreme Court justice Abhay S Oka on Wednesday said that the public faith in the judiciary has eroded considerably, and the reason behind this was the failure of the judiciary to provide quality access to justice at a reasonable cost. “It is my personal view that whatever faith was there in 1950 (when the Constitution was framed), it has eroded considerably for various reasons. And the main reason is that we are not able to provide access to quality justice at a reasonable cost,” justice Oka said. (Source: "Public faith in judiciary has eroded considerably, says Justice Abhay Oka" / Hindustan Times)

The question however is - When will any action be taken? Most importantly - by whom?

How tough is that to understand?

Does India Really Have an Indian Judiciary?

When the unresolved cases have become an epidemic, and lack of trust is a shade better than the worst in the minds of Indian people, the Indian Supreme Court is busy importing foreign woke agenda into the Indian justice system.

Really?

The only human being on planet Earth who can get pregnant is one who has a uterus and ovaries.

While a transgender woman who believes she is a man or people "non-binary" gender identification can get pregnant, but fundamentally the ONLY way one can have a uterus and ovaries is by having two X chromosomes. That is the scientific truth.

So, irrespective of what a person "thinks" his or her gender is, the scientific gender of a person is a biological phenomenon.

What the Indian Supreme Court was referring to is known as Gender Dysphoria.

Gender Dysphoria is included in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (also called DSM) as a mental disorder.

Of course, in today's Woke world, this has become a point of contention and debate.

Because gender dysphoria is included in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also called the DSM, it is diagnosed as a mental disorder, experts said. (The DSM is the handbook used by health care professionals as the authoritative guide in diagnosing mental disorders.) But the gender incongruence — having a gender identity that’s not the one assigned at birth — isn’t what makes gender dysphoria a mental disorder. Having clinically significant dysphoria around the incongruence is what makes it a disorder, Ahuja said. (Source: "Is gender dysphoria a mental disorder? Here’s what you should know" / CNN)

So let us take a step back and think about this whole situation - the Indian Court's judgment and the debate around Gender Dysphoria.

It should be a matter of serious concern for the Indians.

If the minds of the Indian judiciary are based in some woke backrooms of California as opposed to an Indian village and their social constructs are imported and then hoisted on the Indian people, then have the Indian people really gotten independence from foreign rule at all?

Whether directly or by proxy, the inherent moral substratum and rules that govern the country may still be dictated by the foreign powers.

Did it not cross the justices' minds even once that the approach to their interpretation of social constructs needs to be informed by the wisdom of Indian intellectual traditions of over 10,000 years as opposed to some recent shiny 'flash-in-the-pan' object of American non-culture that as yet has no scientific basis?

A cultural phenomenon has become a scientific truth for the Indian justices.