Judiciary plays an important role in the preservation of justice in society. The Indian judiciary can be its perfect example, with the responsibility of settling disputes, protecting fundamental rights, and acting as guardians of the Constitution. However, even after carrying out these duties, judges often get slammed for the nature of their decisions.

Media against Judges?

Recently, the Supreme Court judge, Justice DY Chandrachud criticized the trend of citing personal attacks against judges. He slammed the unethical narratives to target the justice system.

On July 28, an advocate mentioned a petition highlighting violence against the Christian community. It further sought an urgent listing of the petition. Following this, Justice Chandrachud made an observation that he came across some news claiming that the Supreme Court is delaying the hearing of the anti-Christian violence matter.

Explaining the reason for the delay, Justice Chandrachud said, “I was down with Covid, so the matter could not be taken up. But I recently read a news article saying the Supreme court is delaying the hearing in the matter. Give us a break! One of the judges was down with covid, that’s why we couldn’t hear it. There’s a limit to how much you can target judges. Who is publishing such news?”

It’s not the first case where the Indian judiciary and its dignified judges have been concentrated under the loop of questions. It has been a recurrent course for the left-liberal cabal and the promulgators of communalism in the name of religion.

Details of the petition

In April, the Archbishop Of Bangalore Diocese, Dr. Peter Machado along with the National Solidarity Forum, and the Evangelical Fellowship of India moved to the apex court in light to file a writ petition seeking directives to stop violence and mob attacks against the members of the Christian Community in various states of the world’s largest democracy.

The panel then mentioned that violent uprisings against Christians are gradually becoming rampant. It included that on average around 40 to 50 violent attacks were attempted against Christian priests and institutions across the country. In addition, it was alleged that in May 2022, more than 50 such incidents happened.

Addressing the recurrent rise of violence against the Christian community, the Supreme Court agreed to list the petition on July 11, 2022. Senior Advocate, Dr. Colin Gonsalves mentioned the petition before a vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala for its urgent listing.

However, the judges later moved the hearing to July 15. Further, that too was postponed because Justice Chandrachud was suffering from covid.

Repeated attacks on judges

Since the Nupur Sharma case has taken place, various judges have been under the spectrum of questions. Their duty of public service has often been suspected by many. And this is an utter disregard for the entire Indian judiciary.

As reported by TFI, during the Nupur Sharma case, some of the veteran judges remarked that the emotions of the judges came out so extensively that it “diluted the barbaric dastardly beheading in Udaipur.” In reality, Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala accused Nupur Sharma of the barbaric incident. They said, “loose tongue has set the entire country on fire and the outcome is the unfortunate incident which happened at Udaipur.”

During the Nupur Sharma case, Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala were criticized for their loose tongue remarks. People demanded an apology from the judges.

Another Twitter user asked CJI Ramana, whether he will take any action over the loose tongue of these judges.

Previously, Justice Dhingra had also lambasted the honorable judges for their comments. He mentioned that the opinions of any judge can be reflected in his judgments.

As reported by TFI in 2021, Justice DY Chandrachud was heavily criticized for his birth-based obvious upper-caste privilege. He was slammed for his concept of merit while remarking that carelessness is a privilege available to only upper caste people and people from lower caste have to retain their caste identity to claim the benefits offered to them through reservations.

As soon as the respected judge’s opinion about caste privilege came into the limelight, it experienced an immense level of engagement over the internet. People started to dig into the issue. Some were busy searching for the ‘concept of merit’ while some were interested in knowing whether Justice Chandrachud himself follows the idea he promotes or not.

@theskindoctor13, a popular Twitter handle also criticized the apex court judge. He seemed to suggest that Chandrachud only believes in lecturing others and not following it himself.

Another Twitter user @bingaspeaks said that politicians who garnered votes in the name of uplifting the underprivileged failed in their job. Thus, to save their own face, they punished a meritorious population through a populist reservation policy.

Considering the incessant personal attacks on various judges, Justice Pardiwala has also opined earlier that there cannot be a personal attack on a judge for his judicial decisions, irrespective of their legal correctness.

Thus, the same can be seen in the recent remarks of Justice DY Chandrachud. There is a limit to criticizing anybody. And when we talk about the Indian judiciary, it’s intrinsic to show respect to the apex court of India.

References:

tfipost.com