Skip to main content

Kashmir: Why is top Supreme Court layer 'too respectful' of Govt of India sensitivities?

CPI-M leader Sitram Yechury (left) with party colleague in Kashmir
By Anand K Sahay*
The decision of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir to sign the instrument of accession -- codified through Article 370 of the Constitution -- to become a part of India, is integral to the evolution of federalism in the country. According to a famous Supreme Court ruling, federalism forms a part of the “basic structure” of our Constitution. It cannot be tampered with by any government or authority.
The Government of India last month when it ended J&K’s special status -- which had been a condition of joining the then Dominion of India -- guaranteed though Article 370, and the subsequent Presidential Order of 1954 (alongside the Delhi Agreement of 1952 that received endorsement from our Parliament as well as Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly).
Jettisoning this compact of provisions, which together delineate the pathway for J&K to become an “integral” part of India, has caused serious injury to the Constitution’s basic structure since this pathway is an essential building block of our federalism, historically and juridically.
The tampering of such magnitude, amounting to ham-handed constitutional annexation for which there is no explicable justification, can raise speculation about the very status of J&K since the state joined India through accession and Article 370. If this was not available, the action of the Maharaja on October 26, 1947 (to accede to India) may have been wholly different.
Aside from questions of history and constitutionality, at the purely human level and at the level of human rights, practically the entire Kashmir valley has been reduced to a militarised spectacle from the first days of August, causing serious injury to the notion of the protection of life and personal liberty which Article 21 of the Constitution.
The sloth of the apex court was visible when the personal liberty of thousands was at stake
This is arguably the most important aspect of India as a constitutional entity. And yet, literally thousands of our Kashmiri citizens have been locked up by the state, and have been fired on by pellet guns -- which the government belatedly acknowledged -- if not guns with bullets, which the state strenuously denies, though there is no way to verify in conditions of curfew and communications blackout.
Unfortunately, our Supreme Court has slept through it all. It has become the real Rip van Winkle of our times as far as protecting the life and liberty of our citizens is concerned. In the past fortnight, as many as 14 Kashmir-related cases have been filed in the Supreme Court. These relate to the constitutional crisis imposed on the people by the regime, as well as repression and the suppression of human rights which have followed as a matter of course.
The top court has not disregarded them. It intends to hear them, it assures us. But, when? Sometime in October, it says. This is bizarre. It may have been expected that when the country is faced with a politically kinetic development of life-shattering proportions such as Kashmir, the Supreme Court would have moved with despatch, and would have wanted to be heard by our citizens on one of the most material of cases of the post-independence era with a sense of urgency.
But it chose to remain slothful. More, the sloth of the apex court was visible when the personal liberty of thousands was at stake. And this was at a time when there were reports that even eleven-year old boys were being taken to the lock-up from their homes as the government showed unbounded enthusiasm to safeguard the country’s security.
As matters stand, there are more than a dozen petitions challenging the Centre’s action in respect of J&K. But even if there had been no petition, a court which is alive would have been expected to take its responsibilities to the people of India with a greater sense of seriousness and sobriety. It would have innovated to plough into the question of Kashmir created by the government in a delusionary moment.
This was expected of a court whose lineage boasts Justice Krishna Iyer, who blazed the trail of jurisprudence in India with the idea of public interest litigations. In contrast, today we have a court which is demonstrably sluggish when there are more than a dozen appeals before it, including those relating to personal liberty.
National security advisor Ajit Doval in South Kashmir
Just look at the story of CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury’s recent habeas corpus writ petition in respect of the safety of his colleague Yusuf Tarigami, a respected and prominent politician from southern Kashmir who is widely regarded as a voice of sanity. Tarigami has not been heard of in weeks.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi permitted Yechury to visit his colleague in Kashmir in order to satisfy himself that no harm had come to the senior leader. But the court also practically wagged its finger at Yechury, warning him not to cross the line, warning him to ensure that he engage in no other activity and to avoid political activity altogether. Why? Because the situation in Kashmir is very “sensitive”.
Does this not suggest that the uppermost layer in its DNA is to be too respectof the government’s sensitivities? This at a time when the court will be hearing cogently argued appeals by the government’s opponents -- especially that of the National Conference -- on the question of recent developments in Kashmir can hardly inspire confidence.
Issuing an instruction to the leader of one of the oldest political parties of the country who has never shown a proclivity for irresponsible actions or cheap theatrics is to undercut the value of the party system in our democracy.
Yechury is no rabble-rouser. He is no terrorist. The Supreme Court could have righted the balance somewhat in the favour of democrats if it had imposed no conditions on the CPI(M) leader and looked the other way if he addressed a few citizens, or even a press conference in the valley. The government needed to be told a few plain truths.
What an irony. Rahul Gandhi is forcibly turned away from Kashmir by the security forces at the Srinagar airport. The dozen top leaders of opposition parties accompanying him are shown the door. The media with them, the women included, are roughed up. Yechury is spoken to sternly by the Chief Justice without provocation. But national security advisor Ajit Doval is permitted to be photographed displaying the common touch with villagers at a roadside in South Kashmir. Voila. There goes democracy.
---
*Senior Delhi-based journalist. This article first appeared in The Asian Age

Comments

Pankaj Butalia said…
It's not just the Kashmir issue ... look up any important human rights issue over the past four or five years ... the Supreme Court only steps in when it's already too late and any intervention has already become redundant. It's actually a statist Supreme Court - and that's far more dangerous than one or two A.N.Rays from the 70s.
Anshu Chatterjee said…
Glad you are pointing out the non-democratic moves by the state. In this setting, the judges are probably just as worried about threats to their lives or the violence their decisions could lead to. Either way, they are going to have to make some legal argument or the other on this. Interestingly, you point out the ironies of Rahul Gandhi being turned away. Another irony, of course is that he is part Kashmiri Pandit.
Jayanta Roy Choudhary said…
Good analysis and justified comment on the apex court.

TRENDING

Girl child education: 20 major states 'score' better than Gujarat, says GoI report

By Rajiv Shah
A Government of India report, released last month, has suggested that “model” Gujarat has failed to make any progress vis-à-vis other states in ensuring that girls continue to remain enrolled after they leave primary schools. The report finds that, in the age group 14-17, Gujarat’s 71% girls are enrolled at the secondary and higher secondary level, which is worse than 20 out of 22 major states for which data have been made available.

Savarkar in Ahmedabad "declared support" to two-nation theory in 1937, followed by Jinnah three years later

By Our Representative
One of the top freedom fighters whom BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi revere the most, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, was also a great supporter of the two nation theory for India, one for Hindus another for Muslims, claims a new expose on the man who is also known to be the original proponent of the concept of Hindutva.

Congress 'promises' cancellation of Adani power project: Jharkhand elections

Counterview Desk
Pointing out that people's issues take a backseat in Jharkhand's 2019 assembly elections, the state's civil rights organization, the Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha, a coalition of activists and people’s organisations, has said that political parties have largely ignored in their electoral manifestos the need to implement the fifth schedule of the Constitution in a predominantly tribal district.

Hindutva founders 'borrowed' Nazi, fascist idea of one flag, one leader, one ideology

By Shamsul Islam*
With the unleashing of the reign of terror by the RSS/BJP rulers against working-class, peasant organizations, women organizations, student movements, intellectuals, writers, poets and progressive social/political activists, India also witnessed a series of resistance programmes organized by the pro-people cultural organizations in different parts of the country. My address in some of these programmes is reproduced here... 
***  Before sharing my views on the tasks of artists-writers-intellectuals in the times of fascism, let me briefly define fascism and how it is different from totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is political concept, a dictatorship of an individual, family or group which prohibits opposition in any form, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is also described as authoritarianism.
Whereas fascism, while retaining all these repressive characteristics, also believes in god-ordained superiority of race, cultur…

Ex-World Bank chief economist doubts spurt in India's ease of doing business rank

By Rajiv Shah
This is in continuation of my previous blog where I had quoted from a commentary which top economist Prof Kaushik Basu had written in the New York Times (NYT) a little less than a month ago, on November 6, to be exact. He recalled this article through a tweet on November 29, soon after it was made known that India's growth rate had slumped (officially!) to 4.5%.

With RSS around, does India need foreign enemy to undo its democratic-secular fabric?

By Shamsul Islam*
Many well-meaning liberal and secular political analysts are highly perturbed by sectarian policy decisions of RSS/BJP rulers led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, especially after starting his second inning. They are vocal in red-flagging lynching incidents, policies of the Modi government on Kashmir, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the demand for 'Bharat Ratna' to Savarkar who submitted 6-7 mercy petitions to the British masters (getting remission of 40 years out of 50 years' sentence), and the murder of constitutional norms in Goa, Karnataka and now in Maharashtra.

Post-Balakot, danger that events might spiral out of control is 'greater, not less'

By Tapan Bose*
The fear of war in South Asia is increasing. Tensions are escalating between India and Pakistan after the Indian defence minister's announcement in August this year that India may revoke its current commitment to only use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a nuclear attack, known as ‘no first use’. According to some experts who are watching the situation the risk of a conflict between the two countries has never been greater since they both tested nuclear weapons in 1998.

Rushdie, Pamuk, 260 writers tell Modi: Aatish episode casts chill on public discourse

Counterview Desk
As many as 260 writers, journalists, artists, academics and activists across the world, including Salman Rushdie, British Indian novelist, Orhan Pamuk, Turkish novelist and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Prize in literature, and Margaret Atwood, Canadian poet and novelist, have called upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi to review the decision to strip British Indian writer Aatish Taseer of his overseas Indian citizenship.

Worrying signs in BJP: Modi, Shah begin 'cold-shouldering' Gujarat CM, party chief

By RK Misra*
The political developments in neighbouring Maharashtra where a Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress government assumed office has had a trickle down effect in Gujarat with both the ruling BJP and the Congress opposition going into revamp mode.

'Favouring' tribals and ignoring Adivasis? Behind coercion of India's aborigines

By Mohan Guruswamy*
Tribal people account for 8.2% of India’s population. They are spread over all of India’s States and Union Territories. Even so they can be broadly classified into three groupings. The first grouping consists of populations who predate the Indo-Aryan migrations. These are termed by many anthropologists as the Austro-Asiatic-speaking Australoid people.