So, how can I translate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution for the laymen? If you are willing to publicly criticise a Constitutional machinery on a certain valid grounds then you have the freedom to do so under the aforesaid provision. Ofcourse its sweep is lot larger but for the sake of understanding this can serve the purpose. And to warn, this provision is tied with certain restrictions in the name of sovereignty, integrity, public order, contempt of court etc. Most important part, though, arrives when one of those machineries encroach upon the aforesaid freedom of yours. What to do if those machineries persecute you despite the criticisation being valid and not uncharitable? That problem of yours would be remedied by the Supreme Court and High Courts. So what these courts basically do is that they uphold the independent character of India and her people.
A very inspiring aspect of our Supreme court is the activist role that it has played in yesteryear. Yes there have been unfortunate aberrations as well, like the ADM Jabalpur Case, but then the court has learned a lot since then. It has embarked, since then I say, on a largely unparalleled path of creative and activist judicial decisions. I assert that it has been very well comparable to the SCOTUS. One point that everyone needs to assimilate, though, is that nothing exists in a perfect state. Perfection is just a myth. Idea of ideal state of things prophesied by Plato was merely metaphysical with no real existence whatsoever. No Constitutional institution can be flawless including the Apex Court. To err is human and to criticise an error on reasonable, fair and bona fide ground is very well acceptable, for India and her people are free. And the Supreme Court is very well within this ambit of scrutiny and criticisation by the people. But I reckon calling the Supreme Court a supreme ‘joke’ and cropping the image of a BJP flag at the helm of the Court’s building are a sort of criticism that are neither funny nor reasonable by any means. This is, ofcourse, in reference to the childish rant on the Supreme Court by Mr. Kunal Kamra. The nature of those tweets remind me of a little child ranting and raving on his guardians for not buying him poison, packed like a candy, to eat. I have admired Mr. Kamra for his humorous voice against the majority. But nothing is funny that uncharitably crosses the line. Before I proceed I want to make it very clear that I do not want to be identified with any of the political wing- Left or Right. I would rather accept an abuse instead of being called a left or right wing as it is. I consider myself to be a part of the popular wing- the common people’s wing. I reckon the real reason as to why Mr. Kamra is so pissed off at the Supreme Court and all its sitting judges is the stance of the Court in the matter of detention of Mr. Arnab Goswami– whom by the way I refuse to recognise anything more than a parasite. Mr. Kamra might have been fueled by the stance of the Court in the matter of Prashant Bhushan as well, a stance which I too reckon was very unfortunate. But there are ways to react and those ways need to have some civility. There are legal niceties to things like detention which the non-legal humans may not understand. And I am absolutely fine with Mr. Kamra for not being acquainted with those legal niceties.
But the reason, you see, why Mr. Kamra was able to call the Supreme Court a ‘joke’ is simply because India and her people are free and this free character is upheld by that very Court. The reason, you see, why he can publicly assert that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is no more “Hon’ble” is simply because the free character of India and her people is upheld by that very Court. The reason, you see, why he can publicly and unreasonably allege that the sitting judges of the Supreme Court have political considerations is, again, simply because the free character of India and her people is upheld by that very Court. And it is very ironical on the part of the political theorists and commentators to not recognise this fact.
Just imagine if there were no Courts. The Right and Left wing godfathers would absolutely trim us, saving the flatterers, into pieces right from the very centre. This is almost axiomatically true, believe me. The question that I would pose to every citizen of my country is very basic. If you were a victim of injustice, in front of whom would you prefer to cry for justice? One thing sure about the courts is that they would atleast hear our cries.