What Court? What Supreme Court?
The courts in name only. A Supreme Court in name only.
Beyond the name, the courts and the judiciary have become nothing but a fence that eats the crop and a chain that has gone mad.
Looking from the side of justice and truth, the Indian judiciary is dead.
Looking from the side of the people, the courts and their judges have become unprincipled scoundrels.
Courts and judges have been granted permission and protection to remain scoundrels, totally in defiance of democracy.
Courts and judges have become just part of a deep state spread out by ruling fascists.
What we have here is a judiciary and judges to whom accountability and responsibility do not apply, who cannot be questioned in any way.
A judiciary and judges who cannot be questioned in any way, who do not regard answering as an obligation in any way, are a dead judiciary.
Democracy is the people's trust, and is in the state in which people are able to question.
The issue here is not merely that people have lost their trust in the courts and their ability to question them.
If trust in the courts is lost, anarchy is what we must fear.
Because in a democratic process, courts are the last hope and the last refuge.
The courts, which are supposed to correct the errors of democracy, are themselves soaked in errors, and have become part of a deep state prepared in advance by the ruling establishment.
The very protection that nobody can question or punish the court has made the courts no longer courts and the judges no longer judges.
When courts stand shielding the excesses of executive rulers, there is no democracy left in that country. The fence has eaten the crop.
If protests and dissenting voices are not heard, the only outcome is that a people grown desperate will drift toward anarchy.
In India, almost every hope and refuge has been lost.
What lies ahead is an anarchic India that can never be recovered.
The character of courts has become undemocratic, both inwardly and outwardly.
Democracy has become something that does not exist in any way within courts.
The lawyers who must stand with folded hands before judges signal something other than democracy.
Every lawyer displays the mentality of a slave and a subordinate who retains a sense of the master.
It is this same slave-subordinate mentality toward judges and the court that has made it so that judges must not be questioned, judges are not bound to answer, and judges face no punishment or trial even for their intentional errors as judges, and must not.
So how could the democratic character, which should be visible in properly hearing those who go seeking justice and in delivering just verdicts, possibly come from the courts?
What is the evidence?
Why say this?
Any ordinary will ask these questions.
There is only one answer: democracy means sovereignty of the people.
The sovereignty of the people is visible when, whenever any of the branches that make up a democracy fails to do what it should in the way it should, the people can question it and correct it. When there is a mechanism to question and correct in that way.
Democracy becomes right, becomes healthy, only if democracy, its institutions and its people have a bodily mechanism like an immune system, which defends itself, avoids disease and treats it.
Democracy also means that whoever errs in their work, whoever neglects their duty, whoever fails to do their job properly must be questioned and must be bound to answer.
Judges, who receive salaries and comforts in return for the work they do, must therefore also be questioned and must be bound to answer.
Because the people alone, at their own expense, gave them power in the name of employment, those in power are bound to answer.
In a democracy, everyone must be accountable:
Accountability means being bound to answer (liable to respond = response-liability).
It does not mean being able to answer (able to respond = response-able) but choosing not to.
Accountability is the state in which giving an answer (speaking in response) becomes an obligation.
Democracy is not "everyone must answer, except the court, except the judges." Democracy does not grant courts and judges that kind of arbitrary freedom.
The fact that the court, and judges who deliver wrong verdicts in court, cannot be questioned in any way is what gives the political leadership the justification and the means to influence courts and judges, demand whatever verdict it wants, and exploit them.
This is the curse, the sin, of the greatest anti-democratic tendency that Indian courts sustain, that the Indian people face through Indian courts, and that has been visible recently even through Chief Justices of the Supreme Court.
The sin that democracy does not apply to courts and judges.
The sin of using that sin against democracy, against the people, against basic human rights and against the Constitution.
The curse, the sin, that accountability does not exist for courts and judges, must not exist, does not apply.
.jpg)