Justice Deepak Gupta raises concerns over majoritarianism in courts
A retired justice has raised serious questions about the real freedom of citizens in the country.
A retired justice has raised serious questions regarding the actual freedom of citizens in the country. Senior legal expert Justice Deepak Gupta stated in his article that freedom does not merely mean liberation from foreign rule, but also includes the right of citizens to think, speak, express dissent, and raise their voices for their rights without fear.
Live Law published an article in which Justice Deepak Gupta mentioned that India can only be considered fully free when there is no discrimination against citizens based on caste or religion, and everyone has equal opportunities. Liberation from corruption, bias, fanaticism, and intolerance is also essential for true freedom.
The main focus of the article is on the judiciary. It states that no country can be completely free until its judiciary is independent and fearless.
According to Justice Deepak Gupta,
judges must possess integrity and intellectual capacity, along with the courage to stand against injustice. They should work without "fear or favor" in accordance with their oath to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court and High Courts are not merely institutions for resolving disputes; they also have a significant responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The right to approach the Supreme Court directly with complaints of violations of fundamental rights is also granted as a fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution. The article states that while the legal principle of "bail, not jail" is emphasized, the situation in practice appears to be the opposite.
Justice Gupta noted that the number of undertrial prisoners in India is significantly higher than those convicted. He questioned how keeping a person in jail for a long time affects their right to personal freedom when they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Using the example of Umar Khalid's case, the article raises questions about his prolonged detention and delays in the trial. Justice Deepak Gupta asked what would happen to an individual's right to personal freedom and the right to a speedy trial in such circumstances.
The article also states that,
in many cases, the process of obtaining justice itself becomes a punishment for the individual, and people are socially harmed by being labeled as "anti-national."
The article mentions the detention of Sonam Wangchuk as well.
The author stated that,
the decision on the habeas corpus petition should be made promptly.
According to the article,
the hearing in this case was postponed in court, and later the order for detention was quashed, rendering the case ineffective. The author argues that the court should have determined whether the detention was legal or not.
The article states that,
democracy is based on the rule of the majority, but majoritarianism is a situation where the voice of the other side is suppressed. This is against the fundamental spirit of democracy.
Referring to the cases related to Ram Janmabhoomi and Gyanvapi, the author questioned some decisions of the judiciary. He stated that such decisions could impact social harmony among different communities.
The article raises questions about equality in the judicial system by providing examples of bail cases involving people from different communities.
Concerns have also been expressed regarding the recent appointments of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Justice Gupta stated that there should be adequate representation of various castes, communities, and religions in the judiciary. He clarified that the qualifications or integrity of any particular judge are not being questioned, but it is essential for all sections of society to be represented in the country's highest court.
Regarding the current collegium system for the appointment of judges, the article states that this system is not transparent. According to the author, the collegium makes several important decisions without providing adequate public reasons.
The article mentions that public trust in the judiciary is still greater than that in the Parliament and the executive, but this trust is gradually weakening. Continuous scrutiny and public criticism of judges on social media have also become a new challenge for the judiciary.
The article questions not only the judiciary but also the role of lawyers and the Bar Council. According to the author,
an independent bar is also necessary for an independent judiciary. Lawyers should rise above political ideology and ethnic identity to advocate for the rights of citizens and justice.
The article states that,
the fees of lawyers have significantly increased, while the work of providing pro bono legal assistance to those in need has decreased.
Questioning the role of the Bar Council, the author stated that institutions are failing to play their expected role in maintaining the quality of legal education and taking action against lawyers who violate professional ethics. The article describes the right to dissent as an important part of democracy. According to the author, people should have the right to express their opinions without fear and to raise their voices against the government or the system.
Acknowledging that public inconvenience occurs during protests and demonstrations, the article states that sometimes public inconvenience is natural for effective protest.
The author expressed concern that if judges themselves start suggesting ways to limit protests, then the question arises as to who will protect citizens' right to dissent in such situations?
The article concludes by stating that most judges are honest and capable, but there are increasing cases in the judiciary that are damaging its image. The author appealed to the judiciary to engage in self-reflection and take steps to regain its lost reputation.
According to the article, justice, freedom, equality, and fraternity are the fundamental principles of the Constitution's preamble. If citizens lose trust in the judiciary, the foundation of democracy may weaken.