Gehlot defends judiciary but how fair is his argument?

Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot recently said that our Supreme Court judges have been unfairly targeted for their comments in the case of Nupur Sharma.

Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot's criticism against the Centre on the issues relating to the recent remarks made by the judiciary makes little sense. Speaking at the inaugural ceremony of the 18th All India Legal Services Authorities' Meet in Jaipur recently, Gehlot lamented that our Supreme Court judges had recently been unfairly targeted for their comments in the case of Nupur Sharma, the leader suspended by the Bharatiya Janata Party for her remarks on Prophet Mohammed.

In his speech on the occasion, Gehlot referred to a public letter, in which a group of 15 former high court judges, 77 ex-bureaucrats and 25 armed forces veterans had alleged that the comments of the judges against Sharma were not in sync with the judicial ethos and sent 'shock waves' across the country as well as outside.

Gehlot said, "116 people were made to stand up' against the two judges'... It is our duty to respect the judiciary. I don't know how... an issue was created... Supreme Court judges had made observations on what is happening in the country."

Alluding to those who wrote the public letter, Gehlot said that judges and bureaucrats should work to serve the country rather than be concerned about their post-retirement ambitions.

One finds Gehlot is being absolutely oblivious to the context, in which the above-mentioned public letter was written . It may be recalled that in the related case, Sharma's plea to the apex Court was that the FIRs against her in different states for her remarks on the Prophet might be clubbed together in one court. This was very much in tune with a settled law in the country that there cannot be multiple FIRs for the same offence.

Regrettably, the Court overlooked the essential plea and said, "What is her business to make such remarks? These remarks have led to unfortunate incidents in the country... These people are not religious. They do not have respect for other religions. These remarks were made for cheap publicity or for political agenda or some other nefarious activities... The way she has ignited emotions across the country, this lady is single-handedly responsible for what is happening."

The Court's observation in the Sharma case was absolutely out of context. Constitutionally, the apex Court has every right to hear or reject a plea , but none to bang anyone for the case that has not been brought before it . In India, the Constitution is supreme. All organs of our government , including the judiciary, must conform to it.

(Jagdish N. Singh is a senior journalist based in New Delhi. He is also Senior Distinguished Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, New York)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of OneIndia and OneIndia does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.