Is the majority community's will going to govern this nation?
It is evident that when there is a dispute between two individuals, they often say to each other, "I'll see you in court." This is because people still have faith in the courts. They firmly believe that when the government, administration, and police fail to listen to them, the courts will deliver justice. It is the fundamental responsibility of every judge sitting on the bench to ensure that this trust remains intact. However, when high-ranking judicial officials themselves speak of decisions based on religious ideologies rather than the constitution, this trust is bound to waver. For instance, when a respected judge like Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud makes a statement that decisions are being written after consulting with God, or when Allahabad High Court judge Vikas Thakur expresses his personal religious beliefs on a stage of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, the question arises: where does judicial impartiality stand? Furthermore, actions such as Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay resigning from the Calcutta High Court to contest elections on behalf of the BJP, or Supreme Court judge A.R. Dave's statement that "If I were a dictator, I would make teaching the Gita compulsory from first grade," further erode public confidence in the judiciary.
This is a serious issue because courts are established on the foundation of the constitution, and every judge holds a constitutional position. The constitution prioritizes civil rights over religion and guarantees protection to every citizen. A judge's sole responsibility is to ensure the protection of citizens' rights. If judges prioritize personal beliefs or religious affiliations over constitutional principles, it raises questions about the judiciary's integrity and impartiality. To maintain trust in the courts, it is essential for the judiciary to uphold its impartiality and constitutional duties with unwavering commitment. This is the true strength of the judiciary and the real safeguard for the public.
Loyola's documentation of Justice Shekhar's statement leaves no doubt that it raises serious questions about India's constitutional values. His remark, "This country will be run according to the will of the majority," is not only against constitutional principles but also contrary to the nation’s pluralistic culture. For any judge to assert that laws will function based on the majority is a blatant violation of their constitutional oath. The constitution guarantees the fundamental rights of every citizen, and safeguarding the rights of minorities is an integral part of its framework. Furthermore, without explicitly naming Muslims, he implied that their presence poses a threat to the country, making statements that could harm social harmony. His comments on polygamy and other religious practices not only targeted a specific community but also dealt a severe blow to the judiciary's impartiality. The Supreme Court promptly took notice of this statement, questioned Justice Shekhar Yadav, and strictly reminded him to uphold the dignity of his constitutional position. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal indicated in Parliament the initiation of impeachment proceedings against him, which could pose a significant challenge to his tenure.
On the other hand, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court took swift action, reassigning Justice Shekhar Yadav’s roster and removing him from all significant cases. Additionally, Justice Yadav may be summoned again to the Supreme Court for further questioning. This entire episode is not only a test of the judiciary's impartiality but also a critical opportunity to safeguard constitutional values. The judiciary must ensure that every citizen, whether part of the majority or minority, receives equal justice and protection. This is the true essence of India and the foundation of its democracy. Justice Yadav’s statement has not only exposed the double standards of the law but also raised questions about the functioning of the courts. By advocating for the functioning of the country and its laws based on the "will of the majority" rather than the constitution, the question arises: What does he mean by this "majority"? Does he refer to the ordinary Hindu population or the individuals and organizations that politicize the concept of majority for their agendas?
If ordinary Hindus are part of this "majority," then in a dispute between two Hindu parties, on whose side will the law work? And will Hindu farmers and women also be considered part of this majority? If yes, then why is their demand for an MSP (Minimum Support Price) guarantee still unmet? It is worth noting that in 2020, after a year-long protest, farmers ended their agitation based on the Prime Minister’s promise to form a committee and provide an MSP guarantee. During this time, 700 farmers sacrificed their lives. Yet, this promise remains unfulfilled to this day. Farmers continue to protest for their rights, gathering at the borders of Delhi, but they are being prevented from entering the capital.
Furthermore, assistance is provided to 11 crore farmers under the "Kisan Samman Nidhi" scheme. If these farmers are considered part of the majority, why are decisions not being made in line with their demands? This question is not limited to farmers but also extends to the rights of women, laborers, and other marginalized groups. The definition of the majority should not be confined to religion or politics; it must encompass the rights and needs of all citizens. This is the foundation of a democratic system, and the strength of the country's constitutional framework depends on it. Even today, news of heinous crimes such as rape, murder, and violence against women continues to dominate media headlines. Female infanticide remains widespread, and even after seventy years of independence, women are still denied justice. Are they not part of the majority? If so, why is it that when a Dalit, Adivasi, or woman from a vulnerable community seeks justice, the law and administration often appear to side with the powerful and influential?
The SC, ST, OBC, and Adivasi populations constitute a significant portion of the country, but does the nation operate in accordance with their interests? If that were the case, why is their representation minimal in premier institutions like IITs and IIMs? Why are nearly all of the country’s 60 top secretaries, except for two, from upper-caste Hindus? Our forefathers chose to govern the country under the constitution rather than based on religion or the will of the majority, ensuring protection, justice, development, and equal rights for every citizen. The constitution is not just a book; it is the guarantor of justice and equality. Its creation involved extensive deliberation and effort. After two years, eleven months, and eighteen days of rigorous work, the constitution was finalized on November 26, 1949.
The initial number of members in the Constituent Assembly was 294, which later reduced to 288. This assembly included representatives from every section of society to ensure that the constitution would be equal for all. In his book Aaeen Ek Pehchaan (The Constitution: An Identity), Kanak Tiwari wrote that Dr. Rajendra Prasad revealed the process of drafting the constitution cost ₹6,396,729. This amount and time were spent by a poor nation to guarantee equal rights to every individual, not to run the country according to the will of the majority. If the desires of the majority alone were to dictate everything, why would such effort and resources have been expended? The purpose of the constitution was to ensure that every person, regardless of their class or religion, felt their rights were protected and that they were entitled to justice. This underscores the need to uphold the supremacy of the constitution, rather than succumbing to the pressures of the majority.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the foundation of the Constitution is unalterable, and imposing the will of the majority on its essence is equivalent to undermining the Constitution itself. In this context, Justice Shekhar Yadav's statement that the country will run according to the will of the majority is deeply surprising. He is neither a leader of a political party nor a member of the Assembly or Parliament. His position is that of a constitutional figure, and the Constitution demands that all citizens be granted equal rights. A judge is expected to uphold constitutional principles under all circumstances. History offers numerous examples where fascism, under the guise of majority rule, used the law to deprive people of their rights. In such systems, the law becomes subservient to the interests of the majority, sidelining the rights of individuals. If the value of a citizen’s fundamental rights is diminished, the purpose of the Constitution is lost, and the law becomes nothing more than a lifeless document.
If the neutrality of the judiciary is compromised, the very concept of justice vanishes. If the path is rough, one can walk through the mud, but if there is corruption within the judiciary, society cannot breathe easy. The judiciary is the pillar that guarantees the protection of citizens' rights. If ever you need justice and trust in the judiciary is shaken, the question arises: where will you seek justice? It is essential to remember that the dignity of the judiciary and the supremacy of the Constitution are the foundation of any democratic system. If this foundation is burdened by the will of the majority, the dream of social justice and equality can never be realized.
In fact, after 2014, the political environment of the country was deliberately shifted in support of a specific ideology to ensure that a particular party, namely the BJP, remained in power. Behind this transformation was a well-organized strategy that promoted individuals who either aligned with the party's ideology or subordinated themselves to it. Opportunistic elements took full advantage of this environment, and those with a mindset of sectarianism, hatred, and corruption also found their place. This is the same party that once could not even dream of attaining power, but today it governs with a majority. The secret to this success lay in strengthening its foundation through anti-Muslim rhetoric and communal hatred. Anyone who wanted to be close to power joined this race and began leading the charge in spewing venom against Muslims.
The time has come for every citizen of India to seriously consider how to save the country from this destructive situation. This poison of hatred has hollowed out social harmony, and if justice-loving citizens remain silent, this poison will engulf the entire nation. The truth is that the people have the power to change this evolving landscape. If today, we do not collectively take a strong stance against hatred, the vision of a democratic and just India will remain nothing but a dream in the future.
Comments
Post a Comment