The man who fought the Sardar Sarovar dam during the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the who stood the grounds of victims of Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the very same man who sued the Government of India over the 2G mobile phones leading to one of the biggest scams in the history of Democratic India also known as ‘2G spectrum scam’ years later will stand in the same courtroom defending a comment he made on the Judicial of India. Who knew eminent Supreme Court lawyer-activist and former union law minister Shanti Bhushan would be alive enough to see a day when in the same spot where he himself stood fighting some of the most landmark cases of his career his own son will stand to prove himself ‘not guilty’.
Suggested For You: Students Go On Hunger Strike, Demand Postponement Of JEE, NEET Exams
The Supreme Tweet In Court
Tweet in question “When historians in the future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction, & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.”
The issue highlighted here isn’t about HOW Bhushan should behave with the court but indirectly it brings back all the pending issues against him including the cases where he challenged Electoral Bonds controversy, Kashmir article 377 disagreement.
This controversy clearly conveys that Bhushan must be held up as an example — he is a senior advocate practicing in the Supreme Court with an enormous reputation as an activist who has made a lasting contribution to public causes. For if the Judiciary of this country can hold Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt of court for questioning the credibility of the 2nd and the foremost pillar of the largest democracy in the world, the judiciary then each one of us deserves to be held and jailed for every comment made, every post reshared and every WhatsApp forwarded that threatens the very image of this supreme body.
Every criticism, therefore, no matter how measured and responsible, will always in that sense affect the public’s confidence in the judiciary.
What Did The Frenchmen Say?
This case for some reason takes me back to one of the theatrical masters of Sameul Beckett. It is a tragic comedy written in 2 parts about these 2 men Vladimir and Estragon waiting for a man named Godot, the play is ‘Waiting for Godot’. As for someone who has read the play might relate that apart from the absurdism being on its peak there’s this sexual tension between both the characters ‘come sleep with me’, a strange pull between Vladimir wants to lie next to Estragon and sleep. Why am I referring to this? When I read about this case I felt that same tension between the Judiciary of India and Prashant Bhushan, where Vladimir refers to our supreme Judiciary.
Now, very recently the hearing of this case was held and a statement came out from Prashant Bhushan himself which witnessed a lot of chest-thumping in name of ‘Preserve the Democracy’ left me with a thought, the body which swears to rise above all and protect us from all vices respite of who’s who, today stands in a spot where surrounded by the same vices the mallet pointing towards its own face asks, how dare you behave with me like this? Think about it.