Prashant Bhushan, Top Court and the idea of democracy

Three main pillars support our democracy - Legislative, executive and the judiciary. In its history of 70 years,  Indian democracy has evolved its form to coexist with the diversity of the nation. But some concerns remain unaddressed and untouched. Theoretical concepts that appear logical and reformative appear differently when it comes to actual practice. Justice is one concept. Think about a scenario. A High Court judge asked a rape victim if she is ready to marry her attacker. This thinking could be from the idea that the future of the 'victim' needs to be taken care of by someone. But what did the judge actually suggest? To share a life with the same person who abused her. The judgment from a person in a learned position came as a rude shock. It is unsympathetic to the woman. It is offering her a 'favour'.  How is it justifiable to think this way? What did the abuser receive for his crime? Nothing. What did the woman receive from the court? I afraid the answer is same.

The existence of judiciary is a relief as it instils hope to the public. But it is not like what we see in films. Court proceedings are expensive and may cost you a lot of money and time. They are unrepresentative of the general lot. But they are a pillar of hope. A corrective force too. Many of their recent judgements lacked empathy and concern for the poor and the marginalised. It is difficult to quote all of them and I am leaving it to the concerned reader. We began to hear more of them daily such that it is not easy to keep a count! 

We are a democratic country. To a great extent, we are a nation that supports the difference in opinions and free speech on paper. But how democratic are our institutions when dealing with issues concerning them?

Supreme Court today (July 22) registered a sou moto court proceedings against lawyer Prashant Bhushan for his 'defamatory' Tweet. The senior lawyer had tweeted about Supreme Court Chief Justice and his "expensive bike ride belonging to a BJP leader without mask or helmet in lockdown period thus denying the fundamental right of the citizens their access to justice." The Top Court took objection to the photo and said it 'undermines their dignity and CJI office in the public eye.' If the judges were concerned about their dignity and position, they should have behaved that way. When a judge in a top post entertains such behaviour, s/he can't complain that the media (not yet!) or public activists raise some voice against them. In a complete democracy, we can't provide complete authority to any pillar. Why? It may gain control over the other pillars or may even act on behalf of some, which has happened in this case. The judiciary, in my opinion, by taking a quick action without listening to the argument has completely lost it here. It sounds like how a politician would make noise when the opposition alleges something against them. 

The foundation stone that supports the judiciary is the Indian Constitution. Justice and equality are the key values that affirm its existence. When the judiciary is intolerant to talk about the mess inside it, can it be successful to clean the outside world? 

Democracy, in general, is a broad concept. The way it is practised in each nation may vary a lot. But some values remain as they are because they shape the very concept to present times. Tolerance and fair criticism are two of them.