Farooq Abdullah Detention: Crazy Katzu Thinks Supreme Court Is Also on Trial, For Him India Does Not Matter
Crazy Katzu is just waiting to see if the court will uphold the fundamental right to life and liberty. He forgets that this right is in not in isolation but linked with the very Unity and Security of the nation itself.
The most important case in India today is not the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir dispute but the trial of the Supreme Court by the people of India. And a litmus test in this trial will be the court’s behaviour in the case against the detention of Farooq Abdullah under the J&K Public Safety Act. The Act which has been enacted to safe guard the Nation.
The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950. A few months after the promulgation of the Constitution, a constitution bench of the apex court held in Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras that “the Supreme Court is constituted as the protector and guardian of the fundamental rights of the people.” That is correct but Supreme Court is also there to protect the Nation itself. The Court will cease to exist if the Nation itself is destroyed.
This view has been reiterated in several subsequent decisions of the court, for example in the nine-judge bench decision in I.R.Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu.
The most precious of all the fundamental rights is the right to life and liberty, enshrined in Article 21. In Md Sukur Ali vs State of Assam the Supreme Court observed: However this right is equally applicable to those who take oath to guard the nation.
So if someone or some organization tries to kill the security forces through terrorist activities , then this right to life and liberty will not be extended to them. Their supporters too forfeit this right.
“This is because liberty of a person is the most important feature of our Constitution. Article 21 which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty is the most important fundamental right of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 21 can be said to be the ‘heart and soul’ of the fundamental rights.”
This is equally applicable to all except those who try and misuse it. Article 21 was enshrined in the Constitution because the founding fathers were themselves freedom fighters who had seen the civil liberties of our people trampled under foreign rule.
They had also been incarcerated for long periods under the formula ‘No vakeel, no daleel, no appeal’. Hence they were determined that such arbitrariness does not recur in free India. However they too permitted exception to the rule in exceptional circumstances.
Former J&K chief minister.
Emergency erodes top court’s duty
During the Emergency of 1975-77, arrests became the order the day. Instead of declaring them illegal, the Supreme Court rendered the ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla judgment holding that a citizen had no right to life and liberty once Emergency is declared. In other words, in an Emergency, citizens could be shot or jailed without trial by the executive with impunity.
In recent days too, the security and unity of India us under threat. So bail was denied by the Supreme Court to Abhijit Iyer-Mitra who tweeted satirically about the Konark temple (for which he had soon apologised).
This refusal was against the settled principles for granting bail laid down by the celebrated Justice Krishna Iyer in State of Rajasthan vs Balchand. While rejecting bail, CJI Ranjan Gogoi made the remark, that if the petitioner ‘is facing threats, there is no better place than jail’.
In the case relating to the Bhima Koregaon accused (Romila Thapar vs Union of India) the Supreme Court did not quash the prosecution.
Freedom of expression
The arrest of Farooq Abdullah under the Public Safety Act, has been made on the grounds that he incited violence. This is manifestly true and the Supreme Court will not quash the order of the government applying the Brandenburg test.
Farooq Abdullah’s record has not always been that of an ardent Indian nationalist though he was never a secessionist. If he was deeply upset by the revocation of Article 370, which gave a special status to Jammu and Kashmir, he should have protested by inciting others. In case he wants azaadi for Kashmir, then he should be ready to face other Indians who will not permit this at any cost.
He may not go beyond that and commit violence but inciting imminent violence is certainly a crime.
The J&K Public Safety Act, permits detention up to two years without trial, is a law passed by the Indian Parliament. So if some organization funded and supported by countries who looted the world for last 400 years may say any thing , we Indians we only show them a mirror.
