Judicial Naxalism..???

In Bhima-Koregaon case, His Lordship Mr. Justice D Y Chandrachud has come down heavily on Maharashtra Police for holding press conference wherein Police told the public about irrefutable evidence against the four Anti-Nationals a.k.a. Urban Naxals who in his opinion are mere Human Rights Activists by saying police cannot do a Media trial. This argument in my opinion is quite specious, if not superficial.

In para 24 of the dissenting judgment, Justice Chandrachud has observed:

“Police briefings to the media have become a source of manipulating public opinion by besmirching the reputations of individuals involved in the process of investigation. What follows is unfortunately a trial by the media. That the police should lend themselves to this process is a matter of grave concern”.

In para 29, he has observed:

“The conduct of the Pune police in utilising the agency of the electronic media to cast aspersions on those under investigation fortifies the need for an investigation which is fair. When the Joint Commissioner of Police and the Additional Director General of Police cast aspersions in the public media against persons whose conduct is still under investigation, and in disregard of proceedings pending before a judicial forum, it is the duty and obligation of this Court to ensure that the administration of criminal justice is not derailed”.

At this backdrop, has he forgotten that not long ago, four senior most Lordships from Supreme Court had held the PC by rebelling against the CJI Dipak Misra who retires today? They are now called Gang of Four (G4) by the people. The leader of this G4, Justice Jasti Chelameshwar was seen hobnobbing with Communist political leader Daniel Raja of CPI immediately after the PC as if it was a fait accompli for the G4! Was it not an obnoxious Media trial of CJI Dipak Misra by four next in line senior most judges after the CJI? Is it not the duty of the each and every Judge of the Supreme Court to uphold the majesty and integrity of the Apex Court?

People have developed a perception that this G4 is only a tip of the ice berg called 'deep assets of Congress-Communists politicians in the Judiciary'. Their only goal is to systematically destroy each and every Institution in this country eventually leading to the success of ‘Break India Movement’.

Chelameshwar has since retired. However, 3 members of the said Gang are still working as Judges. One such member will be swearing in as next CJI on 3rd October 2018. If Police can be painted as ‘biased” just for holding the media briefing, can we paint CJI designate Justice Ranjan Gogoi and other 2 judges as ‘biased’ by the same analogy?

If on perceived bias of the Police because of media briefing, Justice Chandrachud demands SIT, can the people of India demand resignation of the remaining 3 Judges from the said G4 on the basis of perceived bias because of their media briefing?

Or is it the case that only SC judges can indulge in holding PC and Media Trial?

Frankly, the way SC is obliging the Congi Lawyers who are defending terrorists, naxalites, fraud NGO trustees and so-called activists by opening the door in the middle of night repeatedly, the way urban naxalism is perceived to be diluted as a form of dissent and that such dissent is pillar of democracy, the Institution is already damaged. People have no hope from the SC just like Justice Chandrachud has no hope from Maharashtra Police in the fair investigation of those naxal sympathizers.

The G4 had already set the ball rolling in this direction. The question that bothers is was it only ‘four’ or there are many who have tactfully not come in the front along with G4?

Some decades ago, his father Justice (Retd) Y V Chandrachud, who was perhaps the longest serving CJI, had held that during emergency, people's constitutional rights stood suspended thereby endorsing the Emergency clamped by Indira Gandhi to save her power seat; that eventually made the country the personal property of her descendants. In  Bhima-Koregaon case, Justice D Y Chandrachud seems to have endorsed urban naxalism.

Just like Justice D Y Chandrachud demanding constitution of separate SIT to investigate this case for fair investigation, can people of India demand replacement of at least the present Collegium System by drastic Judicial Reforms to have a fair and non-biased judiciary free from nepotism and political affiliations?

One need not be a law graduate or a doctorate in Constitutional Law to understand that a person's Constitutional rights are subservient to the Sovereignty and Integrity of the Nation and not vice versa.

If it is held to be vice versa, will the people of this country be faulted if they were to describe such judgments as Judicial Naxalism - another form of dissent ostensibly devised to strengthen the Judiciary?

Will we be seeing Naxalism, Urban Naxalism, Judicial Naxalism, and many other forms of naxalism being evolved in near future?

Only time will tell.