Is our Supreme Court Bharatiya?

I am shocked by the news of the undue haste by Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of the Order of UP Government about displaying the name Boards on establishments / shops in the state, which is, in fact, a reassertion of the old requirement. How is it possible that the intelligent judges of the Hon. Supreme Court forgotten the constitutional provision of the Article 25 of the Constitution! Why it immediately rushed into action, instead of asking the petitioner to go to the concerned Hon. High Court, especially when it is already heavily burdened with millions of cases, some of which might be older than 30 years?   

I knew you will be surprised or some may even feel shocked after reading the title of this article, but this is not a political statement made on road or in public rally for election for provoking people and asking votes. Rather it is alarming for right-thinking (Not Right political ideology.) citizens of the country. What has prompted me to write on this topic? Certainly, it is not for election-votes or for getting any endorsement done, as a brand ambassador for any product or any political party or any NGO. I am not interested any of these.

I am a citizen of free India, as envisaged by the makers of our constitution and the Constituent Assembly members and freedom fighters. Whether it is mentioned in the Fundamental Rights in Part-III or not as a citizen of free Bharat, I have inherent right to practice, propagate and protect my Dharma, A Way of Life.  If under the guise of the right of minority, somebody, some individual, an NGO, religious group or a political party attacks on my religion, our national character, national values, national emblems (flag, seal, insignia, coat-of-arms etc.), national anthem, or constitution. Every Indian citizen is expected to protect these things.

On 1st July 2024, Government of India has notified application of three new laws, namely, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (In place of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (In place of Indian Penal Code, 1860) and Bhartiya Adhiniyam, 2023 (In place of Indian Evidence Act, 1872). Undoubtedly, this is a good step toward throwing away the old British laws, which earlier governments could not and did not do, for whatsoever reasons.

The criminal justice system with old laws had become outdated, irrelevant and inadequate. The experience of more than seven decades of democratic government highlighted that those Acts had not kept pace with the evolving criminal activities, as it has not imbibed the best practices that have developed in the field of criminology in recent times. Attempts have been made to bridge the gap in those laws by way of amendments. However, such piece-meal approaches of repeated amendments have not been found to be adequate to comprehensively address the issues in the laws and it was clear that an overhaul of those laws was required. So, legislature, on its parts has fulfilled its responsibility towards the people by introducing the bills and getting passed leading to obtaining the assent of President of India. Unfortunately, judiciary is still crumbling under the old mind set and thereby unable to cope up with the current socio-political-cultural changes taking in the society.

Already, there is a question mark against the whole procedure and process of collegium, recommending the names for judgeship of Hon. High Courts and Hon. Supreme Court. Even though the science of jurisprudence expects that the individual judges at any level in judiciary, from lowest court at tehsil level (Civil Judge Junior Division / Judicial Magistrate First Class) to Supreme Court should be free from biases of individual, individual philosophy, faith, religion etc. and should follow the constitutional discipline and therefore, they are required to swear in the oath of allegiance to Constitution, which specifically and explicitly prohibits the discrimination based on the religion, race, caste, faith, sex, place of birth etc. But some judges at High Court and Supreme Court are not free from such biases, I am not saying all judges at all levels. Believing individually in any particular religion or faith is not prohibited, but what is prohibited is ‘discrimination’ based on those factors. It is not at all necessary and desirable to always have soft corner for minority or any particular section of society, for what so ever reasons, and do injustice to others.  Our constitution has already provided enough safety valves for releasing the tension in social structure, but over and above that there is no need to go beyond the boundary line marked by the Constitution and take steps at the cost of trampling the rights and privileges of the majority section of society, because the country does not only belong to minority.                             

Our Honorable Supreme Court, unfortunately, these days, have become Anti-Sanatan, Anti-Hindu and for that it is bending the constitutional provisions only to protect and please anti-national forces, by seemingly resorting to Article 25 of the Constitution. Let us look at some recent statements appeared in Social media.

If you look at all the above statements carefully, you will find that these all statements and acts are Anti-India, Anti-Constitution, Anti-Peace and against the integrity of the country, but most surprising fact is that our Hon. Supreme Court has not taken cognizance of any of these statements or acts. On the other hand, it is hyper-enthusiastic in usurping powers not vested in it by Constitution; to block, obstruct and prevent the rights of the majority Hindus of this country.

It is selectively and unfairly entertains matters, even though those can be dealt by the Hon. High Court properly. Has any time Hon. Supreme Court su moto taken the cognizance of,

The Article 25 of our Constitution states as under:

Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion: (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law……

            (a) Regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity, which may be associated with religious practice;

           (b) Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

The Supreme Court itself has earlier declared that ‘Each person, whatever may be his religion, must get an assurance from the State (Here ‘State’ means government, Central or State, as the case may be.) that he has the protection of law, freedom to profess, practice and propagate his religion and freedom of conscience.’ State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2081: (2004) 4609: (2017) 9 S.C.C. 1, But, unfortunately in respect of Kavaad Yatra, Hon. Supreme Court has not followed its own earlier decision in this case of Praveen Thogadia. Why? The Article 141 says that ‘Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all Courts. There has to be discipline amongst all. All citizens are expected to be disciplined, so far as following the law of the land.  Similarly Judicial Discipline is also necessary. In case of ‘State of Himachal Pradesh v. Paras Ram’ (AIR 2008 SC 930: 2008 Cr LJ 1026: 2008 AIR SCW 373: (2008) 3 SCC 655: (2008) 1 SCALE 6) Hon. Supreme Court has itself said that, the judicial discipline to abide by Supreme Court decision cannot be forsaken under any pretext by any authority or court, be it even High Court. To my mind, two phrases in this sentence are very important, first, ‘Under Any Pretext’ and ‘by any authority or court, be it even High Court’. The most surprising thing is that Supreme Court itself is not showing the respect to its earlier decision (ratio decidendi). Our Indian Hindu Culture emphasizes on the behavior of prominent personalities in the society and most sacred Bhagwad Geeta prescribes that the behavior of the prominent persons should be spotless and immaculately unblemished in all respect. 

It is fact that Hon. Supreme Court is having millions of cases pending with it for years together. In 2024, the total number of pending of all types of cases at all levels, rose above 51 million or 5.1 cores, including over 180,000 court cases pending for more than 30 years, in district and high courts. Many people are languishing in different jails, waiting for their matters to be heard, but they are unable to afford best lawyers with huge fees. Hon. Supreme Court has very large and kind heart to always hear on priority matters of law-breakers, corrupt people, powerful people and politicians (Like Kejariwal). This is because those people can afford very costly and highly expensive lawyers, who can influence Supreme Court judges. The question is how Hon. Supreme Court gets time to always to hear petitions, out of turn of law-breakers. Even Supreme Court is so concerned of human rights that it opens the court at mid night to hear the matters of anti-national terrorists!

Has Hon. Supreme Court become dumb and deaf? Why it cannot and do not take cognizance of baseless allegations of political parties against judiciary? What it is scared of? Who is threatening them? The most knowledgeable judges must have read about the French Revolution in the history. Does it want it to happen here in India too? Does Supreme Court wants that irresponsible people like Yogenda Yadav, Mamata Banerjee, and CM of Kerala and of for that matter Mr. Rahul Gandhi, create a civil war in the country? Does Supreme Court wants that people should overthrow the constitutionally established Rule of Law? What type of legal interpretations judges are giving?

Have they forgotten Purposive Interpretation? The 7th Chief Justice of India, Hon. Mr. Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar in the case of Kanailal v. Parmanidhi (AIR 1957 SC 907) has clearly pointed that an order to ascertain the policy, intent or object of a particular enactment or the mischief, which the Act seeks to remove, the Heyden’s Rule of 1584 may be applied, provided that the language used in the Act is capable of being interpreted in two different ways. 

Does Hon. Supreme Court want to re-write the constitution itself! Why Supreme Court is turning a deaf ear to what is happening in the country? Have all the judges forgotten the oath they have taken while swearing in?

Why Hon. Supreme Court is not finding the time to hear the important petition filed challenging the Constitution 42nd Amendment? Why it is not serious of handling matter of misuse of Article 368 of Amendment, while passing the said 42nd Amendment? Why it is not important for Supreme Court to deal with the petition challenging the amendment destroying the basic structure of the constitution, like Preamble?

The way back in 1973, much before the coming into effect the 42nd amendment, Hon. Supreme Court has stated that Article 368 does not empower the Parliament to amend or alter the basic structure of the Constitution. But in spite of this guiding principle, the then Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi and her Congress Party has amended the constitution and that too the Preamble itself, which is, in fact, the most valuable sacrosanct document, as it expresses the Will of People of India and Freedom Fighters. She inserted undesirable words in it, namely, ‘Socialist & Secular’.

In fact, Supreme Court itself has said in the past, in Keshvanand Bharati Sripadgalvaru v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 146: (1973) 4 SCC 225: 1973 Supp SCR 1 that the Preamble is a part of the constitution. The Preamble is part of Basic Structure of the Constitution, Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 25: (1978) 4 SCC 224: (1988) 2 LLJ 527, paragraph 24.  

Why matters of national important are not getting priority?  Why Hon. Supreme Court is always in a hurry to hear the matters to stop Hindus from practicing their religious matters? Why it is indirectly encourages Muslims to attack Hinduism and Hindus by their passive silence by turning a deaf ear? Is religious freedom only for Muslim minority under our Constitution, as envisaged in Article 25? Are Judges of our Hon. Supreme Court wiser and intelligent than the members of the constituent assembly chaired by Bharat Ratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar? No, certainly they are not. By education may be some of them have acquired their legal degrees from Oxford or Cambridge or such other colleges form England or USA, but it does not mean that by getting degrees in law form such institutions enables and empowers them to trample with sacred constitution, by unnecessarily and inappropriately adopting so called socialistic progressive interpretation.  

I, in my most honest and humble opinion, with due respect to our Constitution and Hon. Supreme Court judges, think that Parliament should taker cognizance of what is happening in the country and amend relevant necessary law (Or may be Constitution, if it is required.) to overcome such undesirable obstruction and destruction of the rights and privileges of Hindus immediately. Nobody can, and should not be allowed under the guise of rights of minority, to attack brazenly on the basic structure of our Constitution and insult Hindu religion. It is a fact this land is of Hindus from millions of years and Muslims have entered here much later as aggressors, which no historian can deny.

Therefore, all law-makers and those involved and responsible in dispensing the justice, should always remember that in all circumstances, the Constitution must be interpreted in such a way that the deployed interpretation does not lead to contradiction with the historical and cultural legacy and inheritance of high values flowing from the Vedas, Upanishads and Smrutis.

---

Mukund Bhalerao
MA (Political Science), MA (History), MA (Sanskrit),
Bachelor of General Laws, Bachelor of Laws |