There is still a ray of hope for Kanwariyas to carry on with their Yatra which they are missing since last year on account of COVID-19 and most probably this year, as well as their Yatra, is seen as a grave threat to the society because it can shoot up the rise in cases and Honorable court are in no mood to take the risk but there is an idea if they take into the consideration surely they can carry on their rituals.

They simply have to affix a fake beard, wear a simple kurta-pyjama along with a skull cap or wear a dhoti with a turban overhead and they could hope the Indian judiciary would have a change of heart. Or how else you explain that Kanwar Yatra has been taken as a suo motu (on own agreement) by the Supreme Court but Kerala could go ahead with its relaxed lockdown from Sunday onwards to serve the faithful on Bakrid, never mind the God’s Own Country is on its knees by a ruthless Covid-19?

This was not one isolated incident. West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee was sanguine that the state didn’t need a lockdown on May 11 but announced a complete lockdown only two days later, once the faithful had completed the Eid-al-Fitr festivities on May 13. 

The same holds true for protesting farmers who have blocked public space to the inconvenience of general citizens for nearly a year but our judiciary doesn’t fear for the lives of ordinary citizens, as it does for Kanwar Yatra, or as it was for Kumbh Mela which, guess what, was forced close on April 17, nearly a month earlier than Mamata’s order on May 15. Suo Motu? They surely must be joking. 

The Supreme Court today uses the most disdainful words for Yogi Adityanath’s UP for even considering a symbolic Kanwar Yatra but Mamata Banerjee and Pinarayi Vijayan are of a different lineage.

This same heart-rending concern for human lives also doesn’t concern them in West Bengal where months of violence has uprooted, killed and raped thousands or else a suo motu would’ve been driven into play yesterday instead of doubt which is only meant to dilute the outrage among citizenry like it dulled the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in the Valley. 

Such a careless judiciary could also explain why Narendra Modi would be hesitant to proclaim the President’s rule in West Bengal lest it’s overruled in the boundaries of justice in the name of saving democracy. 

How do we explain that the Sabrimala case still hangs fire; the bail on Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi hasn’t gone one way or the other for six years now? Or that on one hand judiciary feels Election Commission should be charged with murder while in Uttar Pradesh it forces the government’s hand to hold panchayat elections? It treats Centre like dirt on the matter of oxygen supply but how would it react if the interim oxygen report is confirmed by the final one? Who would be held accountable, milord?

Our honourable keep preventing on the right to “dissent”. How about if facts bear out the Delhi Police’ investigation that Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal were prime movers in horrible Delhi Riots? And while bails could be their rights was it a moment to give a 100-page opinion on the sanctification of UAPA? How about the “dissent” of shopkeepers of Shaheen Bagh for their innocent families’ livelihood while the demonstration of dadis and ammis set siege on their shutters? 

One fine day the judiciary questions the law of “sedition” and whether we should carry on with such a law which is leftover from the British and used with impunity against Mahatma Gandhi. And what is CrPC? How has our contemporary one borrowed from the 1935 Constitution? How Indian judiciary itself has been inspired in its make-up? Why, even the name of our nation “India”, isn’t it a legacy of Britishers? 

Social Media today is using the most offensive of language against our honourable. Somebody has discovered that one of two judges in the Kanwar Yatra suo motu, is Justice BR Gavai, one of a distinguished lineage—his father RS Gavai was president of BR Ambedkar’s ideological party Republican Party of India and the latter ended up as the Governor of three states (Bihar, Sikkim, Kerala) besides being an MP in both houses of parliament. Our honourable’s brother, Rajendra Gavai is also a politician and president of the Republican Party of India, as per Wikipedia. 

Social Media is raking it up because it is the same Justice BR Gavai who had recused himself from hearing ex-Mumbai commissioner Param Bir Singh’s case recently. Why is the question which the honourable didn’t explain while excusing himself? 

Are judges held responsible? Or the obeying of law is only the burden of common citizenry who wait decades and sometimes receive judgment on their cases posthumously. Who does such judiciary serve? Common people? When innocents can’t avail justice in high areas, society boils and erupts in due course which in political parlance is called Civil War. 

When everyone could be held responsible but the judiciary, it’s a recipe for ill-usage. Indian judiciary can’t self-regulate itself. All our four pillars—Legislative, Executive, Judiciary, Media—are for the people. Checks and balances are requisite of a civilised society which we think democracy is. Such apparent selection does the Indian judiciary is for no good. It loses its authority and makes the mistake of assuming that people are dumb and no better than herds. 

Alexander the Great, it is said, used to close one ear while sitting on a judgement so that he doesn’t get coloured by the position of the other viewpoint. Judges are our modern Rulers and while it’s unfair to consider them Lord Ram who would leave his own wife on a common man’s opinion, it’s time our judiciary is neutral or at least appear one so. 

For justice should not only be done but it should also be seen to be done.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.