By Shivasundar / The Wire
After initially suggesting that parliament is incapable of debating the issue of “freebies”, Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V. Ramana retreated a few days later in what looked like a confession about the constraints of the judiciary in a parliamentary democracy. But the country is passing through such a bleak stage that even occasional reiterations of constitutionalism are cause for celebration.
Also recently, another bench of the Supreme Court, led by the CJI in-waiting U.U. Lalit, granted regular medical bail to veteran poet Varavara Rao, after a long wait of 18 months. But the supreme custodian of the civil liberties of the individual has not shown any indication to reconsider the Bhima-Koregaon case – despite the mounting evidence of its infirmities.
Thus, these silver linings raise an important question about the Indian judiciary. Are the highest courts of the country trying to champion the cause of the constitution or trying to play a balancing act in the face of authoritarianism?
For example, last month a bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud granted bail to journalist Mohammed Zubair almost unconditionally.
“We can’t say that he won’t tweet again. It is like telling a lawyer that you should not argue. How can we tell a journalist that he will not write?” observed Justice Chandrachud on July 20, while hearing a petition by the journalist challenging the cases filed against him by the Uttar Pradesh police.
This observation – and the tone of the judgment – provided a measure of relief to the country. The bench clearly saw through the motives of the state in repeatedly arresting the fact-checker, who had become an irritant to the politics and the ideology of the ruling party and government.
But even before the ink on this bail order dried, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on August 4 denied bail to another journalist, Siddique Kappan, who has been languishing in jail for two years. He was arrested on conspiracy charges while on his way to Hathras, to report on the rape-and-murder of a Dalit woman. Justice Krishan Pahal declared that Kappan “had no work in Hathras” and that his trip with “co-accused persons who don’t belong to [the] media fraternity is a crucial circumstance going against him”.
The judge did not explain the judicial rationale behind considering a journey with alleged members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) as sufficient grounds to deny bail – especially when the PFI is not a banned organisation.
This logic exposes not just the glaring irrationality of the judgment but also the unseemly spectacle of a judge of a constitutional court – which is supposed to safeguard freedom of the press – scripting do’s and don’t’s for a supposedly independent media. Similar instances have occurred with journalists from Kashmir and the Northeast.
This story was originally published in thewire.in . Read the full story here
