'Constitutional' protests

 The Chief Justice of India, while hearing the petition regarding farmers' protests, has observed that protests are constitutional as long as they do not endanger lives and damage property. This is a simplistic and controversial observation. This amounts to legalising gheraos and bandhs. 

Police has no authority to prevent constitutional activities. If a group of people blocks a road (minor or major road makes no difference) and if this activity is certified as constitutional by the highest judicial functionary in the country, how can the innocent public exercise its right to free movement? Does the CJI say that we have a constitutional right to inconvenience others in whatever way we want provided we desist from hitting them or damaging their property?

It appears that the anarchist forces are succeeding in perverting the course of justice. Farmer unions have welcomed various observations made by the court as a moral victory for them. In that case, they must be happy about the suggestions of the Supreme Court. They have also claimed that setting up new panels as suggested by the court will not resolve concerns. Are they happy that the issue will not be resolved?

The Supreme Court is losing its direction because of lobbying by the media. For example, The Hindu today carries an article by Mr.Harish Khare containing direct attacks on the Supreme Court and indirect attack on Modi. (Attacks on Modi and disparaging statements on institutions like courts are an essential requirement for publication of an article in the newspaper.)

Khare argues that 'judges are not in the business of soothing and smoothing.' What is the sin committed by the Supreme Court to warrant this argument? The author is annoyed that the court has shown politeness in dealing with the central government. While passing an order on Central Vista inauguration, the court had said, "We thought we were dealing with a prudent litigant and deference will be shown.... We have shown deference to you and expected that you will act in a prudent manner. The same deference should be shown to the court and there should be no demolition or construction." This is a polite way of warning the government to know its limits. But Khare is aghast that the court is polite towards the government. He calls this 'a protocol of deference' that is 'baffling and inexplicable.'

Deference means respect and politeness. In a democracy, institutions like courts and the government are not expected to deal with one another impolitely or disrespectfully. Anarchists are desperate to create misunderstanding and animosity among institutions.

Khare is unaware that firmness can be exercised politely. Such writers only endeavour to browbeat the judiciary into submission to their extraneous and heinous agenda of causing unrest in the country. He accuses the High Courts of being 'plainly unsympathetic to those who have had reason to critique and protest the Citizenship (Amendment) Act'. Do we see the cat out of the bag now? 

Harish Khare concludes his intimidation of the judiciary arguing that in the absence of 'countervailing judicial constraints' on the government, the 'kisans are manning the barricades at the Sindhu border' !

There is no wonder that the CJI is bullied enough to make the observation mentioned in the first paragraph.