Swaminomics: Bulldozer on Bulldozer Justice! Changes on the judicial front too, hopes raised by recent decisions

Suddenly, the judiciary has got its soul back. This goes back to the judicial principle he often ignored that there should be exceptions to the bail rule and jail. This principle was circumvented by two draconian laws, making it almost impossible to obtain bail. The first is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the second is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Many politicians, activists and journalists were sent to jail under these laws.

The National Bureau of Crime Research says UAPA cases will increase by 18% in 2022 alone. According to government data given to Parliament, about 75% of PMLA cases have been filed after 2014.

Opposition parties and NGOs alleged that an unstoppable Hindutva bulldozer is going to crush secular democratic values ​​and silence all dissent with the connivance of institutions that are meant to be checks and balances.

During the first term of the government, some judicial decisions were in favor of BJP, but not all. However, BJP's landslide victory in 2019 changed the national mood. The courts, media, bureaucracy and police appeared inclined towards the government.

Critics cite several judgments such as the Babri Masjid case that indicate change. The Allahabad High Court had earlier awarded three equal shares in the site to the three plaintiffs, of which the Muslim community was one. But in November 2019, the Supreme Court handed over the entire site to build a Ram temple, finding that the Muslim majority were the victims of the violence. Other courts have since questioned the 1991 law, which forbids changing the character of any religious site.

UP courts begin investigation into the character of Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and Shahi Eidgah in Mathura. In 2014 no one believed that Article 370 of the Constitution, which guarantees Kashmir's autonomy, could be abrogated without a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament. But an executive instrument was used to bypass Parliament. Many experts said that this is not constitutional. And the Supreme Court upheld the directive.

Habeas Corpus is the most basic human freedom in a democracy. But for years the courts refused to hear even the habeas corpus petitions of jailed Kashmiris. The Supreme Court then directed the government to prosecute activist Teesta Setalvad as she sought justice for Zakia Jafri, whose husband was killed in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The court rejected Teesta's plea and accused her of keeping the case heated with 'ulterior motives' and said, 'All those involved in such abuse of process should be brought to justice.' Contrast this with two recent Supreme Court decisions, which have emphasized that there should be bail rules even for people arrested under laws that deny bail.

A judgment said, 'The right to life and liberty is paramount and sacred… A constitutional court cannot be prevented from granting bail to an accused on the basis of restrictive statutory provisions in criminal law, if it finds that the trial The rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated.

You are right! Another notable judgment of the Supreme Court has banned 'bulldozer justice', a practice of retribution by some state governments by selectively demolishing alleged illegal constructions of those accused of certain crimes without following due process.

Bombay High Court has understood the new mood. Last week it banned provisions in the Information Technology Amendment Rules that could be used to suppress dissent.

Over the past few years, India has slipped down the rankings of several global indices such as the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index and the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index. Hopefully this trend is changing. Critics say it is too early to reach conclusions. But the new approach of the judiciary has given courage to the people.

(These are the personal views of the author)