222. One rule book and different judgments 

Before I share my thoughts today, I want to be honest: I have very little faith in the Indian judiciary. Read ‘very little’ as ‘absolutely no faith’. Consider this a personal disclaimer. 

And this I have said many times, and the constitution gives me the freedom to express my opinion. 

Given the extensive draconian provisions in the law books that initially trouble, then tarnish reputations, and ultimately reduce anyone to a living corpse if someone reveals the truth about events in Indian courts, it’s not appropriate or wise to disclose what caused me to lose my faith in the Indian judiciary. I am not alone. Just ask anyone. Yes, anyone around you, and you will find him on my wavelength. I disclose that they don’t is the only difference.

A clear example is the Supreme Court of India’s order for an immediate ban and withdrawal of a Class 8 NCERT social science textbook due to a controversial chapter on corruption in the judiciary. The Court described the content as "motivated" and "contemptuous," leading the NCERT to issue a full apology and withdraw both physical and digital copies. Who would argue that without such lessons, young students might never learn about the widespread corruption in courts? 

So, in simple words, let's conclude our views on Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg Address, with a slight adjustment for the Indian context - the Indian judiciary is of the judiciary, by the judiciary, for the judiciary. 

The sad part is that no political party has the courage to reform the institution, which, along with the police department, will never let the country become a global power, let alone a superpower, and will never allow the countrymen to experience any happiness so India can also aim to be among the top ten in the happiness index.

This is the fact. Crores of citizens go to courts every day and end up enriching advocates, Munshis, and other related individuals by selling their agricultural land and other assets, only to receive, in return, pain, misery, and loss of face rather than justice. Remember, we are a democracy where only numbers matter, and here the number is very high.

If still thinking about reform or have any doubts, note that the Supreme Court of India, by a majority opinion, struck down the 99th Constitution Amendment, which provided for the establishment of the National Judicial Commission to appoint judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court. 

While quashing the same, it re-legislated the repealed provisions of Article 124 and 217, which only the legislature can do. What I know is that the court can only interpret; it cannot be the third chamber of the legislature to rewrite a law. 

The parliament and the government, although they had the power, kept silent.

Commenting on the courts in such a bleak context seems futile, but for documentation, I will note some recent observations. 

First: On February 27, a Delhi court cleared Aam Aadmi Party leaders Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others, clarifying that there was no overarching conspiracy or criminal intent behind the excise policy. The judge castigated the CBI repeatedly for its conduct. He characterized the investigation as a premeditated and choreographed exercise and also recommended a departmental inquiry into the conduct of CBI officials who had designated Kejriwal as the main accused.

It seems Arvind Kejriwal is a favorite child of the Indian judiciary – remember, he was permitted to campaign for election not many years back. A relief the courts never granted to George Fernandes after the Emergency, when he fought the Lok Sabha election behind bars and won.

Now, on March 10, just 11 days later, the Delhi HC said that the special court's observations against witnesses and approvers in the liquor policy case, while discharging ex-CM Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others, appear "prima facie erroneous". Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, admitting the CBI's revision plea, has sought responses from the 23 accused discharged in the case. 

The court also observed that the trial court’s remarks about the CBI’s investigating officer were prima facie and foundationally misconceived. It paused the trial court’s remarks against the investigator, including the order to consider departmental action.

“After hearing arguments on behalf of CBI, since the respondents remained absent despite service of advance notice, this Court is of the opinion that certain factual discrepancies pointed out in the impugned order, the observations made by the learned Trial Court regarding statements of the witnesses and the approvers, at the stage of charge itself, prima facie appear erroneous, and need consideration when viewed in the background of well-settled law on charge and conspiracy, as to whether such observations could have been made at the stage of charge itself,” the order read.

Second: Yesterday, Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai of Karkardooma Courts granted temporary bail for 10 days, from March 20 to March 30, to Sharjeel Imam to attend his brother's wedding. The case is related to the 2020 North-East Delhi riots conspiracy case. The riots were the culmination of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

However, just two months ago, on January 5, the Supreme Court granted bail to five of the seven accused in the Delhi Riots Case, but the bail pleas of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid were rejected. The court maintained there was a prima facie case against the two under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Just imagine – he is granted bail to attend a marriage ceremony. How many people are in much worse situations in jail, needing weeks to see a dying mother, but the court isn't concerned?

Third: In March 2023, a Surat court convicted Rahul Gandhi of criminal defamation for his 2019 "Modi surname" remark, sentencing him to two years in jail, which triggered his automatic disqualification as a Member of Parliament. He approached the Gujarat High Court, which also dismissed his plea. But in August 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the conviction, restoring his Lok Sabha membership.

Anyone can conclude that the judgment most of the time depends on who your advocate is. He will get the court to sit on a holiday, and even at two o'clock at night. The basic requirement is how deep your pockets are and how much power you wield.

One rule book and different judgments. 

The functioning of the courts can also be observed in the number of pending cases. 

 A survey was conducted in Bihar at the request of the Minister of State for Jails, Ashok Chaudhary, which reported a shocking case: Seventy-year-old Jaladhar Yadav was charged under sections 341 and 323 of the IPC. The maximum penalty under section 341 (wrongfully restraining a person) is one month of simple imprisonment. Likewise, under section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), Yadav could face up to one year in prison, a fine of Rs. 1,000, or both. Instead, he has been imprisoned for 20 years while awaiting trial. 

According to the survey, some under-trials have spent 20 years or more in jail without being convicted. At least 154 under-trials from various prisons across Bihar are over 70 years old. Many suffer from serious health issues. Several of the elderly and infirm under-trials have already served or exceeded the jail sentences for the offenses they are accused of.

This is the time to face the truth. The Indian democracy, in fact, is gradually becoming a tyranny of the unelected. If it continues, the democracy itself would be in danger. Gone are the days when people were either ignorant or had no access to know what was happening around them.