The past few days have been full of excitement tinged with optimism. The new Chief Justice of India has hit the ground running, setting a scorching pace for others. Long-pending cases involving bail, which should have been granted as a matter of routine -- some lingering over almost two years -- have been disposed of. Not only this, CJI UU Lalit has not been sparing the investigating agencies and the state governments involved from criticism little short of scathing. All this has set hundreds and millions of hearts aflutter; maybe there is yet hope for the citizen's fundamental rights to find judicial protection in face of a state bent upon bulldozing them.
Can an individual though undo the damage done to an institution by a long succession of predecessors who had chosen to look the other way, wring their hands like the jesting pilate, have thundered in stentorian tones about values enshrined in our Constitution, but have shied of practising what they were fond of preaching? The judgments avoiding confrontation with an increasingly bullying muscular State have proved to be, to put it mildly, damp squibs.
Majority of Indians are confused also due to confusing signals sent by other honourable judges of the apex court. Some of them adopt a hostile attitude when an advocate arguing a case seems not to share the lordship's understanding of history, views about religion and, in general, what comprises Indian civilisation, its core values and mores.
Justice Hemant Gupta's digressions, if one may use this term in all humility and deep respect, are pearls of wisdom that cause great apprehension among the minds of millions who don't belong to his generation and do not share either his wisdom or wit. When he asks, "How can we compare the US and Canada with India? We are a conservative society", a chill runs down the spine of the listeners. Does our Constitution state that we are a conservative society and will remain so forever? The comparisons with the US and other Western countries are irrelevant. The recent judgments of the US Supreme Court diminishing abortion access, leave none in doubt how conservative that society is (that is if you subscribe to the view that the judges appointed for a lifetime by a partisan president are in step with the temper of the times in their own country).
The debate rages on about the release of convicted rapists and murderers by a favourable political dispensation and, worse, the public adulation showered upon them after the remission of their sentence.
A clutch of PILs have entreated the Supreme Court to revisit the case and not let a blatant miscarriage of justice continue and be celebrated. The State may be within its rights to grant remission, or even pardon any convict, but the manner in which it is done deserves judicial scrutiny. If this is abolished, then what remains of the glorified structure of 'separation of powers'?
The government continues to sit over judiciary's recommendation for appointment of judges in High Courts and elevation to the Supreme Court. The young and ebullient law minister never tires of extending an invitation to judiciary 'to collaborate with the government to realise the dream of building a great Indian nation by 2047'. We live in 2022 and 2047 is far, far way off. Not many seem to have been bothered by the sleight of hand with which the goal post has been shifted from amrit kaal to shatabdi varsh of Indian independence.
Celebrations, a new one every other day, can no longer distract the citizen suffering from inflation, unemployment and poor healthcare. Alas, the Opposition has fallen into the trap of carrying the battle to save the democracy on the social media. Congress's Bharat Jodo Yatra and barbs hurled at Rahul Gandhi's 'expensive' attire fail to amuse the distressed. Trolling RaGa for his sartorial tastes have only rekindled memories of the PM's million-dollar suit, Maybach glasses and Mont Blanc pens. Someone enterprising has also spotted the home minister sporting a Burberry scarf. We all are getting addicted to wasting our time on adulterated opium of the masses.
Whenever things get a little inconvenient for those in power, the narrative shifts to the meaningless contest on the cricket pitch (matches being played in foreign lands) or the moolah raked in by the Hollywood blockbusters on their premiere. What difference does it make to the life of a poor Indian, whether a remake of Hollywood hit sinks to the bottom unsung or a mythic fantasy nets in mind-boggling profits for another producer? Success and failure in T20 cricket or in mega-budget films is again linked to communal prejudice.
Replacing history with fables and fantasy, myths and legends cannot serve any meaningful purpose. Blindly following the leader, however great, heroic or charismatic, inspirational or energetic, has never been the Indian way. India, indeed, is different from the US, Russia and China.
Pushpesh Pant is a former professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He can be reached at pushpeshpant@gmail.com.