India, an incomplete democracy

 

The news channels, in recent times, have been so disappointing due to two reasons : the various reports of national unrest and the way the channels treat the news as a pathway to publicity. The truth is altered according to one's own opinion and served as a communal propaganda on social and digital media. The recent row over wearing hijab and the infamous dispute over gyanvapi mosque have garnered varied opinions, among various sects of people. 

The comments, made by the judges, on Mrs.Sharma's case depict the patriarchal mindset that women are responsible for everything. If one's remarks were the cause of national unrest, we should be concerned what is the role of the government and its bodies in maintaining peace in the country.

In a country where even criminals are conferred all the human rights , it is against the law to deny the plea of someone based on personal opinions. The court asking a woman to apologise and blaming them before a legal trial seems outrageous. 

Even a collective of fifteen ex-judges, 77 former bureaucrats and 25 retired officers of the armed forces have condemned the Supreme Court's recent comments against Nupur Sharma, citing the remarks as “not in sync with judicial ethos”.

India is a democracy where government of the people, by the people and for the people is followed. Hence, the public is conferred the rights to remark on the judgement made by the courts. "The public opinion is subordinate to rule of law" says the supreme court judge. By calling a personal opinion of a court bench as the country's law, the interest of the country's own people has been forsaken.

The situation arises questions such as: Are there any laws to stop the citizens from expressing their views freely and questioning the judiciary system from time to time? If the government itself is liable to answer the citizens, are the guardians of rights spared from it? 

Before blaming anyone, we must realize that this is one big problem in our country and should be dealt with careful consideration. Instead of pointing fingers and showing personal biases, the judicial system is deemed to act in a mature way and deal with the cases, according to the law. 

There is also a notable difference between being influenced by public opinion and having the best interests of the public in mind. A single person or community can never be held responsible for the iniquitous agenda of some weapon wielding agitators.

"Judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses,” a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court noted in 1990. 

Though protection has been given to Mrs.Sharma in this case, the judges were at first reluctant, questioning whether she has a security threat. If protection is something offered only to the minorities, what about the whopping majority? 

India is a country where Hindus constitute almost 79% of the total population. It is the reaponsibity of the country's leaders to protect the welfare of every citizen. A dutch politician- Geert wilders states, "Hindus should be safe in India. It is their country, their homeland, its theirs." If Hindus are not safeguarded against the radical groups, India will suffer a huge blow.

The public may not be presented the whole truth in some situations. Thus the responsibility of investigating the truth and presenting the apt judgements vests in the hands of the judiciary. 

We can agree that the digital and social media needs to be regulated; not to curb the freedom of speech of the general public, but to discipline the haters who use it to poke fun on religions or races. Strict action should be taken to punish such offenders and promote the moral integrity of the country.