MN Roy Memorial Lecture: Delivering the MN Roy memorial lecture, former Chief Justice of the Delhi and Madras high courts Justice A P Shah made significant observations. He questioned the kind of nationalism that forces people to stand for the National Anthem at movie theatres, that tells people what to eat and what to speak.
He deplored that a cult of nationalism is on the rise where people holding views against that of the government are being dubbed anti-national. Justice Shah equated today’s discourse on nationalism with what M N Roy had said in 1942 before India got independence from the British Raj—“A parochial, selfish, narrow-minded nationalism has caused so much misfortune and misery to the world”.
Justice Shah regretted that our institutions of learning are under attack today and there is every effort to destroy the independence of thinking by certain regressive forces operating in the country. Justice Shah informed the audience that his grandfather was the president of Hindu Mahasabha in 1940s.
However, he disagreed with the thinking of the Mahasabha and also with present RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s call for a ban on cow slaughter across the country. He stressed the need to be cautious of forcing a single ideology or way of living in India, where states such as Kerala, or the states in the Northeast consider beef a staple part of their diet. Interestingly, Justice Shah expressed his disagreement with the Supreme Court’s order on the National Anthem.
He said the right to free speech and expression also includes the right not to speak or express ourselves, and regretted that under the guise of law, the court has now stepped in and restricted our fundamental rights. Justice Shah’s frank and forthright views are most welcome and they deserve utmost attention. We cannot allow our citizens to become victims of the ‘cult’ of nationalism or, for that matter, any cult of patriotism and the like.
Marital Rights of Parsi Women:
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine shortly whether a Parsi woman after marriage is deemed to take the religion of her husband and would cease to be a Parsi. More specifically, the Supreme Court will examine issues such as whether a Parsi woman married to a non-Parsi can be allowed to follow her religion? Should she have access to the Towers of Silence, the place for last rites of Zoroastrians, and also to other Parsi religious institutions to offer prayers and perform rituals.
The Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court’s March 2012 judgment which had ruled that unlike her male counterpart, if a Parsi woman married a non-Parsi, her religious identity would merge with that of her husband and that she would be deemed converted to his religion. If she wanted to continue to be a Parsi, she would have to specifically give up her husband’s religion in court or prove that she led the Parsi way of life.
A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar and M M Shantanagoudar observed that the issue dealt with the aspect of religious identity of a woman, and agreed to examine the issue which is of great concern to the Parsi Zoroastrian community. Curiously, there was no Parsi judge on the bench which passed the order though there is one in the Supreme Court.
Breather for PM Nawaz Sharif:
Opposition leader Imran Khan initiated proceedings in Pakistan Supreme Court for disqualification of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif after his name appeared in the so-called Panama Papers which indicated money-laundering by the latter.
The Pakistan Supreme Court rendered a split verdict in a 549-page judgment. According to the majority, there was insufficient evidence for the drastic step of disqualification and instead announced the formation of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) comprising five members.
The Prime Minister’s side breathed a sigh of relief. Imran Khan, who wanted disqualification, declared victory even with the JIT’s creation. One feature stands out: As in India, in Pakistan also no person is above the law and gets exempted from judicial scrutiny.
This common feature in the judiciaries of the two countries is heartening and testifies to the faith reposed in the independence of the judiciary.
solisorabjee@gmail.com