Concern for our Justice(s)

The most powerful man in India - according to the Indian Express annual power survey - is Justice S.H. Kapadia, the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India.

The reason they give for choosing a man virtually unkown to the man on the street is simple. Justice Kapadia and the Supreme Court is expected to further rock the government in the coming year:

"At a time when so much of Politics is being determined by judicial pronouncements and even observations - related to headline-grabbing court cases, the number one judge and the court he runs have become the country's most influential arbiter... The apex court has never been as hugely crucial in determining policy and politics as in recent times."

As an example of the honorable justice's sway they have this morsel:
Power Punch - He took less than a minute to decide, after hearing lengthy arguments, that the Allahabad High Court's verdict on the Ayodhya Title suit must be pronounced; threats of violence could not be an excuse.

We are grateful that we have a system of law in our beloved country of India. But for years we have been looking to our courts to do things that they should not be - giving our country leadership.

It is for our elected leaders to draw up policies and implement them. Our courts should at most be providing checks and balances. The judiciary should make sure that what is being done is according to the constitution and be a place where the abuses of power can be addressed.

Over the years, however, so much of our elected leadership has not really been doing what we elected them for. At best they have been timidly reacting to situations (esp. since so many corruption scandals are bubbling away) and it has been increasingly activist courts who are implementing many areas which the executive should be doing. I am all for clean cities - but it should be the Delhi government, not the Delhi High Court who makes the policy decision - and implements it - that all public buses should run of CNG.

And so it is especially disturbing to read the justification of a recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the commuting of the death sentence of Dara Singh by the Orissa High Court.

Let me say here something very clearly. I do not want Dara Singh to be hanged. I am against the death penalty in principle.

I will also say that Graham Staines was a personal friend of my parents - though I don't think I ever met him. My parents knew him well - and are especially close to his widow Gladys. His murder in January 1999 was a very sad day for us as a family. Sheba and I have had the deep privilege of meeting Gladys Staines. The whole world knows about her courageous and Jesus-loving stance of forgiving her husband and sons' murderers. Hanging Dara Singh will not bring the three back to earth.

There is, however, deep cause for concern about the rationale given for the recent supreme court decision.

Listen to how the Times of India reported:

While upholding the life sentence awarded to Bajrang Dal activist Dara Singh for the 1999 killings, a Bench said on Friday: “In the case on hand, though Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon at Manoharpur, the intention was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity.”

The Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan went on to add: “It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone's belief by way of ‘use of force', provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other. It strikes at the very root of the orderly society, which the founding fathers of our Constitution dreamt of.”

This is chilling stuff.

Lets unpack it a bit. If you read what our most august Justices are saying - you hear this:

1. Graham Staines and his sons were sleeping while they died.
Hardly. Eye witnesses talk about them being prevented from escaping from the burning jeep while the mob shouted "Bajrang Bali Zindabad" and "Dara Singh Zindabad"

2. That they were being 'taught a lesson'.
You get the distinct impression that the hon'ble justices are agreeing with what was meted out on the Staines.

3. here is 'no justification' for 'interfering in some one's belief' -
well then... there is every justification for doing the most horrible things to prevent such 'interference.'

4. 'Interfering in someone's belief' can be done through a wonderfully mixed bag of: use of force, incitement, conversion and 'a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other'

Wow.

This strikes to the core of what it means to be an Indian. We may not be comfortable with the faiths of our fellow Indians - but they have the right to believe that they are correct - and even better than my own faith.

Article 25 of our Constitution guarantees all persons freedom of conscience and the right to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their choice.

Lets take an example.

I am not a vegetarian - I support the rights of vegetarians to propagate their beliefs - including those who are vegetarians for religious reasons. I support their right and the exercise of this right to try and convert me to vegetarianism. They have the right to feel superior to me if they want to. That is what freedom of conscience means.

---------------------

The saving grace so far is that after the judgement was published - an outcry ensued. Papers published the story immediately. Our 'civil society' swung into action. A joint statement by the editors of leading newspapers across the country demanded that the remarks be 'expunged.'

They were.

The Supreme Court acted sou moto and replaced the remarks with other ones. If you are interested you can read a reaction to this by John Dayal of the AICC.

What troubles me are two things:

1. The initial remarks by our Supreme Court Judges reveal that at the highest level of our judiciary we have a deeply anti-freedom agenda. I believe that these remarks reveal how much of our decisions are made. It is no wonder that various mobs (often the 'rent-a-riot' variety) continue to intimidate groups of people who are praying to Jesus across our country. The police - if they do come - usually detain the victims rather than the perpetrators.

2. The way that remarks can be 'expunged.' Though I am glad that the Supreme Court toned down the comments - what does it say about the processes of how judicial decisions are made and communicated? If tomorrow all the papers are outraged about something - for the wrong reasons - will the court rewrite its reasons? Though the most grevious words have been knocked out - the overall taste of the whole episode is pretty sour.

Plus, the replacement wording hardly does justice...

"In the case on hand, though Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon at Manoharpur, the intention was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity."

has been replaced with:

“However, more than 12 years have elapsed since the act was committed, we are of the opinion that the life sentence awarded by the High Court need not be enhanced in view of the factual position discussed in the earlier paragraphs,"

and

We hope Mahatma Gandhi’s vision of religion playing a positive development integrating into a prosperous nation will be realized. "It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone's belief by way of use of force, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other."

has been replaced with:

"There is no justification for interfering in someone's religious belief by any means."

-------------------------------

But then again - this is hardly new stuff...

Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. Mark 15.15

Cry the beloved country.