By refusing to hear case against Assam CM, SC made “Himalayan blunder ……. let down India”

4 months ago 39

By refusing to hear hate speech case against Assam CM, SC made "Himalayan blunder ..... and let down 1.4 billion Indians": Dushyant Dave, to Karan Thapar for The Wire. ......................................... In strong and stinging criticism of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the hate speech against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Dushyant Dave, a former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has said the top Court has made “a Himalayan blunder” and “let down 1.4 billion Indians”. Mr. Dave said the Supreme Court “insulted each one of us” by refusing to take up the matter and, additionally, it’s done a disservice to the institution and to the judges themselves. Mr. Dave responded to each of the reasons given by the Supreme Court for refusing to hear the case against Himanta Biswa Sarma. First, he said with reference to the claim that the Supreme Court was not “a playground for political litigations for the purpose of publicity” that this is a “really unwarranted and uncalled for” observation. Second, he said with reference to the claim that if the Court takes up every matter across the country “it will be unmanageable for us”, Mr. Dave said it’s “the bounden duty of the Supreme Court to intervene”. Third, with reference to the claim that by going to the Supreme Court before the Guwahati High Court this was “undermining the authority of the High Court”, Mr. Dave said this was a “completely farcical” argument. He said “the right to go to the Supreme Court is a guarantee” given by the constitution and if you use it it doesn’t mean you are undermining high courts. Speaking about the quality of chief justices since 2014, Mr. Dave said: “Over the last few years chief justice after chief justice have failed us”. The two chief justices he excluded from this verdict are Justice U. U. Lalit and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Mr. Dave has delivered an exceptionally strong critique of the functioning of the Supreme Court in this case as well as a cogent and clear rebuttal of the Supreme Court’s reasons for not taking up the hate speech case against the Assam Chief Minister. In the process he’s provided a framework for judging the performance of the Supreme Court as well as the behaviour and speeches of the Assam Chief Minister. I strongly recommend you see this interview. To help you, I give below the principal questions put to Mr. Dave. Here they are:- 1) I want to focus this interview on the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear allegations of hate speech against the Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and instead tell the petitioners to go to the Guwahati High Court. Was this the right step for the Supreme Court to take or has it made a terrible mistake? 2) Let’s come to the reasons the Supreme Court has given for refusing to hear the case. First, it says it can’t become a political battleground whenever elections are on the radar. Chief Justice Surya Kant said: “Why should the Supreme Court become a playground for political litigations for the purpose of publicity?” Is this a fair comment? Were the petitioners seeking to use the Supreme Court as a battleground where they can get publicity? 3) The second reason the Supreme Court gave for not entertaining the case against the Assam Chief Minister is that if every matter across the country were to come to the Supreme Court “it will be unmanageable for us with 33 judges.” Is the Supreme Court overburdened and, therefore, can’t take on more cases? 4) The third reason is the Supreme Court’s belief that the petitioners are undermining High Courts by not going to the Guwahati High Court first. Chief Justice Surya Kant said: “The entire effort is to undermine, demoralize the High Courts which is not acceptable to us. There is a very calculated move to undermine the authority of the High Courts.” What do you make of this reason? 5) Let’s now come to Abhishek Singhvi’s reasons why the Supreme Court should hear this matter under Article 32. He first said this is “(a) pan-India (matter)” and it affects “an entire religion and … the constitutional fabric and ethos of the country is threatened”. He argued that Article 32 was created specifically for what he called such “mega cases”. How do you respond to that argument? 6) Abhishek Singhvi also argued that the Guwahati High Court may not be the right forum to seek redressal of constitutional grievances against the state Chief Minister. He even suggested that if the matter has to be sent to a High Court it should he a High Court other than the Guwahati High Court. How do you respond to this argument? Join The Wire's Youtube Membership and get exclusive content, member-only emojis, live interaction with The Wire's founders, editors and reporters and much more. Memberships to The Wire Crew start at Rs 89/month. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChWtJey46brNr7qHQpN6KLQ/join

The Vision and Mission of Upilink News - Empowering Informed Citizens

Welcome to Upilink News, your gateway to unbiased news, investigative journalism, and a platform free from government censorship. At Upilink, we believe in the power of information to empower citizens, fostering a well-informed society capable of making informed decisions.

Our platform, hosted at www.news.upilink.in, is meticulously curated to provide users with a reliable source of news, steering clear of propaganda and ensuring the delivery of objective reporting.

The Need for Upilink News

In an era where information is abundant but often tainted with bias and misinformation, the need for a trustworthy news source has never been more critical. Upilink News recognizes this necessity and strives to fill the gap by offering a carefully curated selection of news from diverse, reputable sources.

Our commitment to unbiased reporting and investigative journalism distinguishes us as a beacon of truth in the digital news landscape.

Our Unique Approach

What sets Upilink News apart is our meticulous selection process for news sources.

We prioritize transparency, accountability, and reliability in our curation, ensuring that only the most credible and unbiased reports make it to our platform.

Our team of experienced journalists and fact-checkers work tirelessly to sift through the noise and present users with news that stands up to scrutiny.

The Role of Investigative Journalism

Investigative journalism is at the heart of Upilink News. We understand that a well-functioning democracy relies on an informed citizenry, and investigative reporting plays a pivotal role in uncovering the truth. By supporting and promoting investigative journalism, we aim to contribute to a more transparent and accountable society.

Sustaining Upilink News - Your Support Matters

Free Access for All

At Upilink News, we firmly believe that access to information should be a fundamental right for everyone. Therefore, our platform is entirely free to use, allowing users from all walks of life to stay informed without any financial barrier.

Donations - Fueling Independent Journalism

To sustain our commitment to unbiased reporting and investigative journalism, we rely on the generosity of our users. Your donations go directly towards supporting our team, maintaining our infrastructure, and enabling us to continually improve and expand our coverage.

By contributing, you become a vital part of the Upilink community, driving the mission to keep information free and accessible.

Advertisement - Balancing Sustainability

In addition to donations, we embrace advertisements as a means of generating revenue to support Upilink News.

In conclusion, Upilink News is more than just a news aggregator; it's a commitment to empowering citizens through unbiased information.

Join us in our mission, explore the diverse and credible news on our platform, and consider supporting us through donations. Together, let's build a community that values truth, transparency, and the power of an informed citizenry.