This post will deal with the ridiculous system of governance in the country, especially in the light of Bilkis Bano’s case, though I might mention other cases. Besides, this post will have a different tone from my previous ones. This will not just be an analysis of what happened and questions related to it. Rather, it will encompass a combination of rant, sarcasm, insult, satire along with the analysis part. So, there might not be an apparent logical continuity in the post but it follows a narrative pattern to have an emotional continuity.
Disclaimer : This post may contain some explicit content which could be injurious to your body and mind if you are weak hearted, casteist, religious fundamentalist, racist, sexist, or simply an asshole.
- Date of release
- Why so emotional?
- Who are the convicts?
- Timeline of events
- Fun fact from CBI investigation
- Brahmins are Sanskar
- Humanitarian grounds
- Let him who is without sin cast the first stone
- What does the law say?
- Are State Governments permitted to release convicts?
- Is the grant of remission in the Bilkis Bano case legal?
- What is an “appropriate government”?
- The issue of Centre’s concurrence
- The issue of presiding judge’s opinion
- Past judicial precedents
- 1992 remission policy vs 2014 remission policy
- The sentence review board
- But why am I targeting the judiciary instead of the government in general?
- LHS = RHS
- Contempt of court
- Contempt of people
Date of release
The convicts are released on the 15th of August, especially on the 75th anniversary of Independence. Is this a joke? Is this a prank? Is this an april’s fool? Is this a provocation? Or is it just a coincidence? I don’t think so. The day when the whole nation got freedom, 11 convicted rapists also got to enjoy their freedom. But what about the victims? Well, who gives a shit about them anyway? That’s why they are called victims.
This is a well known quote of M K Gandhi. But what is the hidden meaning behind this quote? Gandhi being a self proclaimed satyagrahi who follows ahimsa as his truth cannot say certain things explicitly. Poor guy. So, to see what exactly he possibly meant, we have to see the corollary of this quote which most people don’t think about. “The day a rapist can never walk freely anywhere in the country, that day we can say that India has achieved independence”. And we have done exactly the opposite of this on this ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’. Or maybe the tears of the victims is the ‘amrit’ (elixir) on this ‘mahotsav’ (festival) of ‘azadi’ (freedom) of the convicted rapists. In that case, the motto is well thought out. Kudos!
Why so emotional?
Releasing the convicts early on Independence day or Republic day for their good behavior in the prison has been an ongoing practice of the government for a long period of time. Why should we all get so fumed over this? These hyper-intellectual questions are asked by halfwits. The answer for them is dispersed throughout this post. But let me give an abstraction of it. Law is not god given. Law is for the utility of the people to harmoniously coexist with each other. And justice is an integral part of this. Even if this remission happened as per the laws and conventions, it is wrong. And to make it worse, this remission didn’t even happen as per the laws, which we’ll get into in a short time.
Who are the convicts?
Twenty people were accused in the case. Of them, 13 were found guilty. And of them, 11 were awarded life imprisonment. The names of the convicts, who got life imprisonment, are Jaswantbhai Nai, Govindbhai Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana.
Timeline of events
Violence had broken out in Gujarat in the aftermath of the Sabarmati Express train burning incident at Godhra on February 27, 2002 amidst an already communally charged atmosphere. Fifty-nine people were charred to death after a mob torched one of the coaches returning from Ayodhya to Ahmedabad with a large number of ‘kar sevaks’ of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
Blaming Muslims for starting the fire, Hindu mobs went on a rampage, attacking Muslim neighbourhoods. Over three days, more than 1,000 people died, most of them Muslims.
Fearing the outbreak of violence, Bilkis Bano fled from her village named Randhikpur with her three-and-a-half-year-old daughter and 15 other family members. Bilkis Bano was in a group of 17 Muslims that included her daughter, her mother, her cousin, her younger siblings, nieces and nephews, and two adult men. Over the next few days, they travelled from village to village, seeking shelter in mosques or subsisting on the kindness of Hindu neighbours.
March 3, 2002 : On the morning of 3rd March, as they set out to go to a nearby village where they believed they would be safer, a group of men stopped them. Bilkis and her family members were attacked by about 30 people armed with sickles, swords, and sticks. One of them snatched her daughter from her lap and threw her on the ground, bashing her head into a rock.
Her attackers were her neighbors in the village, men she had seen almost daily while growing up. They tore off her clothes and several of them raped her, ignoring her pleas for mercy. Her cousin, who had delivered a baby two days earlier while they were on the run, was raped and murdered and her newborn was killed.
Only Bilkis, a man, and a three-year-old survived the attack.
Bilkis Bano survived because she lost consciousness and her attackers left, believing she was dead. According to reports, she regained consciousness three hours after the incident and after borrowing clothes from an Adivasi woman made her way to the Limkheda police station to register a complaint with the help of a home guard. After which Bilkis was taken to a public hospital for medical examination.
2002-2003 : Local police officers repeatedly refused to register her case, citing lack of evidence, and threatened legal action if she continued the matter. Bilkis then approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and entered a guilty plea to the Supreme Court in December 2003. The Supreme Court then ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the case.
January 2004 : After gathering all available evidence against each of the suspects identified in Bilkis’s complaint, the CBI arrested them all.
August 2004 : After Bilkis raised her concerns about the possibility of evidence tampering and potential harm to witnesses, the High Court decided to move the trial from Ahmedabad to Bombay.
January 2008 : 13 people were found guilty by the trial court of raping Bilkis, participating in a criminal conspiracy, and murder, with 11 of them receiving life sentences. The defendant subsequently challenged the conviction in the High Court, requesting that the trial court’s decision be reversed.
July 2011 : The CBI petitioned the Bombay High Court asking for the convicts to be hanged.
July 15, 2016 : Appeals filed by 11 people charged with crimes in the 2002 gang rape case were heard by the Bombay High Court.
September 2016 : The convict’s lawyer requested that a number of witnesses in the case be re-examined, but the Bombay HC refused his request.
October 2016 : Bombay High Court tribunal ruled that the application cannot be admitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but as the court mentioned Bilkis can make her application an appeal.
December 2016 : The convicts had challenged the order on three main grounds – that all evidence in the case was fabricated by CBI, that Bilkis gave birth to a child after the incident, proving that she could not have been gang raped, and the failure to find the bodies of some of her family members which proved that they were not killed. Bombay High Court reserved judgment on an appeal by 11 prisoners who were sentenced to life imprisonment.
In addition, the HC reserved judgment on a CBI appeal seeking harsher punishment of death for three of the convicted persons on the ground that they were the main perpetrators of the crime, describing it as one of the rarest of rare situations.
May 2017 : Bombay HC confirmed the life sentences of the 11 convicts.
May 4, 2017 : The high court convicted seven people – five policemen and two doctors – under charges of not performing their duties and tampering of evidence.
July 10, 2017 : The court had dismissed the appeals of two doctors and four policemen, including an IPS officer R S Bhagora, challenging their conviction by the high court saying there was “clear-cut evidence” against them. One of the officers did not appeal.
May 15, 2022 : One of these prisoners, who had already served more than 15 years in prison, went before the Supreme Court and asked for an early release.
August 15, 2022 : The eleven convicts were released from Godhra sub-jail under the Gujarat government diversion policy.
If you want to know more details about the incident of horror, check out the book ‘Between Memory and Forgetting: Massacre and the Modi Years in Gujarat’ by Harsh Mander.
Fun fact from CBI investigation
The CBI concluded that the post mortem examination was carried out shoddily in order to protect the accused. CBI investigators exhumed the bodies of those killed in the attack, and said that none of the seven bodies had skulls.
According to the CBI, the heads of the corpses had been severed after the autopsy, so that the bodies could not be identified.
Brahmins are Sanskar
In this video, he says that he is not sure if they had really committed the crime or not. Really? Even the convicts didn’t seem to have any doubts regarding it. Though usually every convict with life imprisonment or death penalty goes to the Supreme Court claiming that they didn’t commit the crime, these 11 convicts didn’t approach the SC with any such claims. So they don’t seem to have any doubt in their conviction. Why do you have such doubts Mr. Raulji? If you are still having such doubts after the conviction by the Bombay HC, what are you trying to imply? Are you saying that you believe the HC wrongly convicted those 11 innocent people? Are you having doubts about the competency of the Bombay HC? Are you having doubts on the integrity of the Bombay HC? Shouldn’t the HC take contempt for this comment of Honorable MLA Mr. Raulji?
“They are brahmins with good sanskar”. Then why did they fucking rape? Maybe rape is a spiritual and sanskar act for them. They are not ordinary rapists. They are sanskar rapists. I wonder why they haven’t started a hashtag yet saying #notallrapists. You know, not all rapists are bad. Some are sanskar rapists. They are very good people, with good behavior. Sanskar rapists should not be treated merely as ordinary rapists.
Now am I talking against all brahmins? Usually everyone goes with the defensive argument of “of course not”. But let’s do something different for once. Do you think those people really feel offended thinking that we mean all brahmins are bad? Of course not. They clearly know that we don’t mean all brahmins. But yet they ask this because all they want is attention. Let me tell you something you don’t want to hear but you desperately need to hear. Everything is not about you. What if I am saying that about all brahmins? So what? Does the heaven fall? Is that really the bigger issue here compared to Bilkis Bano’s case? I don’t care if your fragile heart is broken. I don’t care if your ego is damaged. I don’t care if your sentiments are hurt. Nobody cares about these trivial things. And so should you. This is not the moment to feel sorry for your pathetic life.
What is this name C K Raulji? Maybe your parents anticipated that you will never grow up to be a respectable man and hence will never be respected in society for your behavior. So they added “ji” to the end of your name. Clever parents. You certainly don’t deserve it. And clearly your parents have predicted the future with a greater accuracy than our meteorological department predicts monsoons.
Humanitarian grounds
Some Gandhians say that everyone deserves a second chance. Even a murderer and rapist. Gandhi might have forgiven Godse immediately for his sins but why should everyone do so? And just because Gandhi did something, why does it make it right? Gandhi is not god even if everyone calls him mahatma. If those criminals deserve a second chance, then what about the newborn child who was killed? That child didn’t even get to have her first chance at life. Are these criminals human enough to consider them for remission on humanitarian grounds? Escaping from death sentence itself is a very big mercy for them which they don’t deserve.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone
There’s this famous story of Jesus. According to the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought a woman charged with adultery before him. Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her”. The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. When Jesus found himself alone with the woman, he asked her who her accusers were. She replied, “No man, lord”. Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more”.
Though the scenarios are totally different, the implied moral is to forgive any sinner. So should we all forgive these criminals? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. But there’s a problem with this interpretation. There’s no Jesus in this world. Since everyone is a sinner, all the sinners support each other and continue to sin knowing that nobody could punish them. This leads to a vicious cycle of crime and revenge. So how about we reverse the logic? Let’s punish every single criminal harshly. Let him who is without sin pardon the sins of others. Just like how Jesus was the one who had the moral right to pardon the sinner in the story and not anybody else.
What does the law say?
Not everyone can have remission even though remission is a right. Yes, remission is not a privilege but a right, according to the law. However, it cannot be granted to everyone. There are some conditions imposed by the Supreme Court. In Laxman Naskar v. Union of India (2000) case, the Supreme Court laid down five grounds on which remission is considered –
- Whether the offence is an individual act of crime that does not affect the society
- Whether there is a chance of the crime being repeated in future
- Whether the convict has lost the potentiality to commit crime
- Whether any purpose is being served in keeping the convict in prison
- Socio-economic conditions of the convict’s family
Also, convicts serving life sentences are entitled to seek remission after serving a minimum of 14 years in prison. Let’s see if those 5 conditions mentioned above are satisfied in this case.
- Clearly their crime is not an act against an individual but humanity.
- This is very subjective. So let’s say they won’t repeat the crime in future.
- They all look healthy enough to commit the same crime again. They are not meek old men.
- Yes, they serve as a lesson for other potential criminals.
- We have no idea about it. So let’s say they are in a bad situation and desperately need help.
Even with this generous evaluation, they satisfy only 2 out of the 5 conditions. Even if one condition is not satisfied, they shouldn’t have been released. But here the majority of the conditions are not satisfied and yet they are free.
Are State Governments permitted to release convicts?
A fundamental tenet of legal jurisprudence is that the executive cannot change a court-issued sentence. However, since prison is a state subject under Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution, section 432 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure allows state governments to grant remission to convicts, which means, a State government can release a prisoner prematurely, if it so desires. However, the states should set up a Sentence Review Board to exercise the powers under Section 432 of the CrPC. While the policy varies from state to state, broadly the grounds for remission considered by the Board are the same. This provision is legal because in cases of remission, only the way the sentence is carried out is changed. Thus, remission only means that the execution of a sentence is handled differently and it does not imply that a person’s conviction is overturned. It is pertinent to note, however, that the exercise of the power of remission is in itself subject to judicial review.
The administration and management of prisons is governed by the Prisons Act, 1894, and the Prison Manuals of the respective state governments. The Prisons Act provides that only states can make rules regarding the release of prisoners on remission, as part of the correctional process in jail reforms. However, the Centre is permitted to release non-binding guidelines with regards to the same. In this context, the Ministry of Home Affairs released a comprehensive Model Prison Manual in 2016 on all aspects of prison administration and requested all states to review existing rules and procedures and base their rules on remission, among other things, based on this manual. However, this manual is not binding in nature.
Is the grant of remission in the Bilkis Bano case legal?
In order to determine the legality of the grant of remission to the convicts, certain questions must be answered. First, is the Gujarat Government the “appropriate government” as per Section 432(7) of the CrPC to grant remission? Second, is the Centre’s concurrence necessary in cases of remissions? Third, is the opinion of the presiding judge necessary? And fourth, do past verdicts of the Supreme Court of India support such instances of remission? Analysing legal and judicial developments pertaining to these four questions shall provide us with a clearer picture on the legality of the remission in the present case.
432. Power to suspend or remit sentences.—(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.
(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.
(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favour the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favour the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.
(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with:Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of fine) passed on a male person above the age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and—
(a) where such petition is made by the person sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or
(b) where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail.
(6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any section of this Code or of any other law, which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property.Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(7) In this section and in section 433, the expression “appropriate Government” means,—
(a) in cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government;
(b) in other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed.
What is an “appropriate government”?
Section 432(7) of CrPC categorically provides that “appropriate government” is the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed. Thus, technically, the State of Maharashtra would be the “appropriate government” in the present case. However, as noted above, the Supreme Court, in Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Gujarat, held that the “appropriate government” was the one where the offence took place in the present case as under normal circumstances, the convicts would have been tried in the State of Gujarat.
However, this decision has been criticised by many, including Senior Advocate Rebecca John who stated that the case was transferred to Maharashtra due to extraordinary circumstances and thus, there would be an apprehension of bias on the part of Gujarat Government while determining the case. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan, Justice Lalit, stated that “According to this provision, even if an offence is committed in State A but if the trial takes place and the sentence is passed in State B, it is the latter State which shall be the appropriate Government”.
Similar view was also held in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh (1976) and Hanumant Dass v. Vinay Kumar and others (1982). The text of the statute is very clear in this regard, as Section 432(7) says “appropriate government” is “the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced or the said order is passed”.
The issue of Centre’s concurrence
Section 435 of CrPC states that in a case where an investigation is carried out under any Central Act by a central agency (such as CBI in the present case), no order of remission can be passed by the State Government, unless concurrence has been produced by the Central Government. The rationale behind the same is that matters investigated by central agencies such as CBI fall under the ambit of the executive power of the centre. Thus, the state, on its own, cannot grant remission in such cases. In the present case, there exists nothing in the public domain which provides that the Centre was consulted before granting remission to the convicts. It is also pertinent to note that in June 2022, the centre had released guidelines pertaining to remission. As per the guidelines, special remission was to be granted to prisoners on August 15, 2022, January 26, 2023 (Republic Day) and August 15, 2023. However, the guidelines made it clear that persons sentenced to life imprisonment and rape convicts were not entitled to be prematurely released.
The issue of presiding judge’s opinion
Section 432(2) of the CrPC provides that the appropriate government may take the opinion of the presiding judge of the court before which the person making an application for remission had been convicted on whether the application should be allowed or rejected, together with the reasons for such an opinion. In Sangeet v. State of Haryana, the court, while opining that the government was required to approach the presiding judge, stated that-
“The decision to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned. The statutory procedure laid down in Section 432 CrPC does provide this check on the possible misuse of power by the appropriate Government.”
In fact, in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court even held that the procedure stipulated under Section 432(2) was mandatory as the opinion of the presiding judge would enable the government to take the ‘right’ decision as to whether or not the sentence should be remitted. However, as held in Laxman Naskar v. Union of India, and later, Ram Chander v. State of Chattisgarh, the opinion of the presiding judge has to be accompanied by fair reasoning.
“In Sriharan (supra), the Court observed that the opinion of the presiding judge shines a light on the nature of the crime that has been committed, the record of the convict, their background and other relevant factors. Crucially, the Court observed that the opinion of the presiding judge would enable the government to take the ‘right’ decision as to whether or not the sentence should be remitted. Hence, it cannot be said that the opinion of the presiding judge is only a relevant factor, which does not have any determinative effect on the application for remission. The purpose of the procedural safeguard under Section 19 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission. It is possible then that the procedure under Section 432 (2) would become a mere formality”, the Supreme Court observed in a recent decision.
In the present case, nothing in public record shows that the opinion of the presiding judge was taken before granting remission to the convicts.
Past judicial precedents
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh, the Supreme Court had observed that the State had an undoubted discretion to remit or refuse to remit the sentence and no writ could be issued to direct the State Government to release the petitioner. However, in Ram Chander v. State of Chattisgarh, the Supreme court held that–
“The Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision was arbitrary in nature. The Court is empowered to direct the government to reconsider its decision.”
Accordingly, the grant of remission is subject to judicial review. A quick look at judicial precedents determining the legality of remissions would show that much weightage is given to “fairness” of such remissions. For instance, in the case of State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, the Supreme Court held that the power of remission could not be exercised arbitrarily. The court stated that-
“The decision to grant remission should be informed, fair and reasonable”.
1992 remission policy vs 2014 remission policy
The Gujarat government released the 11 convicts on the basis of the 1992 remission policy, and not the policy adopted in 2014 which is effective today. The reasoning behind using the 1992 policy is that the Supreme Court had directed the Gujarat government to rely on the policy that was in effect at the time of their conviction in 2008, according to Gujarat’s Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Raj Kumar.
He told PTI, “These 11 persons were convicted by a special court in Mumbai in 2008. At the time of conviction, Gujarat was following a remission policy which came into effect in 1992. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it directed us to decide about the release under the 1992 policy, because that was prevalent when conviction came in 2008.”
The 2014 policy mentions that rape-and-murder convicts cannot be released by the state government.
ARTICLE 20
(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
Constitution of India
Still, the non-adherence to the CrPC and previous judgement of the Supreme Court by the government is clearly illegal. It has nothing to do with the remission policy.
The sentence review board
Who are those people that recommended the release of those 11 convicts? BJP legislators C K Raulji and Suman Chauhan were the members of the committee, along with few others, headed by Godhra Collector and District Magistrate Sujal Mayatra. Remember the guy who said that the rapists are brahmins with sanskar values? The same guy, C K Raulji, was a member of this board. Other two members of the committee are — a social worker and former Godhra municipal councillor from the BJP Murli Mulchandani and a worker with the BJP women’s wing Snehaben Bhatia. Besides, the committee consisted of the District Social Welfare Officer, a Sessions Judge and the Superintendent of Jail.
But why am I targeting the judiciary instead of the government in general?
The Judiciary is supposed to be the one who oversees that everything operates according to the law. If the judiciary is silent on this, they are part of the crime. If the court wants to convey that they selective in their judicial review, then let’s all be selective. Let’s everyone go lawless and wild. A famous journalist once said that India is a functional anarchy. Anarchy isn’t as bad as this selective operation of law by the judiciary. Only the oppressors need to fear in an anarchy. Let’s everyone involve in civil disobedience. This is isn’t new to us anyway.
LHS = RHS
It took 15 years of struggle for Bilkis Bano to get conviction for those criminals. To a victim, the delay in justice is torture. So Bilkis Bano endured 15 years of torment. The criminals spent 15 years in prison. To a criminal, the prison time is torture. So the criminals endured 15 years of torment. Both the victim and the perpetrator suffered the same amount of time. And moreover, the criminals get to enjoy their freedom immediately after they leave the prison. But the victim suffers for years, if not for the whole life, due to the trauma of the incident. What is the court of justice trying to convey here? Should have Bilkis Bano killed those criminals instead of approaching the useless courts in India? Atleast then there Bilkis would have had the satisfaction of awarding death for those criminals. And she would have suffered the same 15 years of time but this time in the prison.
Contempt of court
A sessions court in Kerala, while granting anticipatory bail recently to an author and social activist in the State in a case of alleged sexual harassment, observed that the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (‘Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty’) is not prima facie attracted when the de facto complainant was dressed in ‘sexually provocative dresses’. The sessions court had relied on photographs submitted with the bail application of the accused showing that the de facto complainant was wearing a dress that was ‘sexually provocative’ and hence, Section 354A would not be used against the accused. A judge of a court says this. And he is still not in prison.
The Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (2021) had held that “the use of reasoning/language which diminishes the offence and tends to trivialize the survivor in gender violence cases is especially to be avoided under all circumstances. Thus, the following conduct, actions or situations are deemed irrelevant”. Even if the SC didn’t say this, shouldn’t an Honorable judge know this basic thing by default? If you don’t know this unless someone points it out to you, then why the fuck should we call you as “Honorable”? If you want to be called honorable, then act honorably. If you act like a criminal, you will be treated as one. The same goes for all the justices in India. If you cannot put such a shameful person of your fraternity in prison, then you are an accomplice. You’ll be treated as an accomplice to a criminal. Before cleaning the whole India, first clean yourself. The words of a judge carry respect only when the judge is an Honorable person. Not when they are criminals and accomplices.
Why do you have the power of contempt of court? Contempt of court is a power given out of respect for the court. The court doesn’t get respect automatically. The respect of the court is gained through the respect of the judge. When the judge is a filthy scumbag, why would anyone respect the court?
Contempt of people
Chief Justice of India N V Ramana recently said that the media is running “kangaroo courts” on issues even experienced judges find difficult to decide. Like whether to blame a woman for wearing provocative clothes or not? If you judges are useless, somebody has to do the job. The media capitalises on it. Instead of whining like a kid at the age of having a grand kid, how about you try to do your job?
Media is people’s voice. If they are criticising the judiciary or the government, it is the voice of the contempt of people. You cannot shut out the voice of people. If you do your job properly, you can reduce the contempt though. How about you try that for once? Oh yeah, you people only talk a week before your retirement. I suppose just a day before you got to know your full job description. But already it’s time to plan your retirement vacation I guess.
If it’s honey to your ears when people worship you as “my lord” and “lordships”, you should equally be able to take it with grace when people throw you on the mud and stomp you with their feet for your mistakes
Arrow Of Thoughts 