The comfort and hope brought to the common people and vulnerable sections that come from intervention of the judiciary, even in the era of governments that are full of racial and communal prejudices is beyond words. Although there are countless examples of judgments and court interventions that are regressive and reflect state-corporate interests, there are still shining examples of pro-people judgments that make it appear that ordinary people are also part of this land and continue to be vigilant to keep the preamble of the Constitution alive. The Supreme Court's verdict on Wednesday against the bulldozer raj in which the government or its agencies arbitrarily demolish the homes and properties of those deemed guilty, can be described as the latest example. It is no exaggeration to say that this bulldozer raj based on caste and religion, has been rampant in all the states where BJP governments are in power, such as UP, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan, We have seen many incidents of houses being demolished, even for taking a stand that was inconvenient for the government and the Sangh Parivar forces that control them. Though the court had earlier warned against this immoral trend, the UP government and others who believe themselves to be above the Constitution did not heed it. Let us hope that the government will at least listen and comply with the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which ruled that the government has no authority to demolish anyone's houses or other structures, whether they are criminals or accused persons, and that the government or related authorities cannot do what the court has to do.
It has been a year and a half since the Supreme Court bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagaratna issued a strong judgement to take action against hate speech perpetrators irrespective of religion. The court had ordered that cases be registered suo motu against those who commit these crimes that disrupt the peace and harmony of the country, without even waiting for anyone to file a complaint. Despite the country's Prime Minister, Home Minister, state Chief Ministers down to the local unit leaders continuing to incite hatred against minorities during and outside election seasons, many state governments are not ready to honour the court's verdict and take legal action. It is unfortunate that not only the states ruled by the BJP but also the states ruled by the INDIA Front parties, including the Congress and the CPI(M), are no exception to this. If the above is about governments that do not comply with the orders issued by the courts and adopt a contempt of court approach, the next point to be pointed out is about the neglect of the courts in upholding judgment and justice. Our courts have delivered many brilliant judgments against the violation of the rights of people who are imprisoned and against the unjust denial of bail. Most recently, in September this year, a Supreme Court bench of Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, which granted bail to Aam Aadmi Party's communications in-charge Vijay Nair after 24 months in prison, said that if a person is kept in custody for such a long time without trial for an offence that attracts a punishment of only seven years' imprisonment, the principle of bail being the law and prison the exception completely fails.
The court's remark that this principle of bail applies even to cases filed under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was widely praised in legal and civil liberties circles. However, the Supreme Court refused to consider a writ petition filed last Monday seeking intervention in the bail issue. Gulfisha Fathima, who was arrested under the UAPA in connection with the Delhi riots, had approached the Supreme Court seeking bail. The Supreme Court has ruled that the bail application should be considered by the Delhi High Court. If Vijay Nair spent two years in jail without trial in the case in which the Supreme Court highlighted the issue of civil liberties, Gulfisha Fatima is in jail for more than double that, to be precise, four years and seven months. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal pleaded that the Delhi High Court had postponed the bail application 24 times due to the presiding officer's leave and 26 times without even hearing the arguments, but the bench did not soften its stance. In a country where the controversial man Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, who was convicted of rape and murder, is regularly released on parole during election seasons and holds Satsangs in the presence of ministers, the court should have at least been prepared to explain to the people why Gulfisha Fatima, who was implicated in the case for standing firm in her own opinion, did not even receive consideration for her bail application.