Voices In Opposition Can’t Be Muzzled By Persecuting Those Who Take Up Unpopular Causes: Justice Chandrachud’s 2nd Dissent In The Week

Unable to agree with the views of the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar “as a matter of principle”, Justice Chandrachud today observed that “dissent is a symbol of vibrant democracy” and “voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes” to hold that a Special Investigating Team must be appointed to probe the arrest of five activists in connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence and probe must be monitored by the court.Justice D Y Chandrachud, in his dissenting judgment, said, “I am unable to agree with the views expressed by the learned Chief Justice and my learned brother Justice AM Khanwilkar”.…I am of the view that while the investigation should not be thwarted, this is a proper case for the appointment of a Special Investigating Team. Circumstances have been drawn to our notice to cast a cloud on whether the Maharashtra police has in the present case acted as fair and impartial investigating agency. Sufficient material has been placed before the Court bearing on the need to have an independent investigation.“Hence, following the line of precedent of this Court…, I am firmly of the view that a Special Investigating Team must be appointed. The investigation shall be monitored by this Court. The Special Investigating Team shall submit periodical status reports to this Court, initially on a monthly basis,” said Justice Chandrachud.He also ordered that the interim order passed by the Court on 29 August 2018 shall continue to hold the field for a further period of three weeks within which it would be open to the arrested individuals or any one or more of them to apply for bail before the Court of competent jurisdiction.In his dissenting judgment, Justice Chandrachud took note of the “unfair press conference” by the Pune Police where allegations of plot to attack the Prime Minister have bridled away to the media, the letters said to be authored by the activists and the panch witnesses accompanying police out of Maharashtra.“The conduct of the Pune police in utilising the agency of the electronic media to cast aspersions on those under investigation fortifies the need for an investigation which is fair. When the Joint Commissioner of Police and the Additional Director General of Police cast aspersions in the public media against persons whose conduct is still under investigation, and in disregard of proceedings pending before a judicial forum, it is the duty and obligation of this Court to ensure that the administration of criminal justice is not derailed.“I make it absolutely clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as any observation on the merits of the investigation which is to take place. The purpose of the direction which I propose to give is to ensure that the basic entitlement of every citizen who is faced with allegations of criminal wrongdoing, is that the investigative process should be fair. This is an integral component of the guarantee against arbitrariness under Article 14 and of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. If this Court were not to stand by the principles which we have formulated, we may witness a soulful requiem to liberty,” said Justice Chandrachud.Before taking up the facts of the case pertaining to complaint moved by Historian Romila Thapar and other distinguished individuals against the arrest of Gautam Navalakha, Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves, Justice Chandrachud took note, though without making an express mention, of the recent landmark judgements passed by the Supreme Court, be it decriminalising homosexuality or decriminalising adultery.“Our recent decisions reiterate the value of individual dignity as essential to a democratic way of life. But lofty edicts in judicial pronouncements can have no meaning to a citizen unless the constitutional quest for human liberty translates into securing justice for individuals whose freedom is under threat in specific cases,” said he.“The role of the Court involves particularly sensitive balances when the state seeks to curb freedom to investigate perceived breaches involving offences against the state.Voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes.Justice Chandachud spoke about how dissenting voices also have their space under the Constitution.“There is a serious allegation that the arrests have been motivated by an attempt to quell dissent and to persecute five individuals who have pursued the cause of persons who have suffered discrimination and human rights violations. In approaching the present case, the Court must be mindful of the need not to thwart a criminal investigation leading to the detection of unlawful acts. Equally, the Court has to be vigilant in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 to ensure that liberty is not sacrificed at the altar of conjectures.“Individuals who assert causes which may be unpopular to the echelons of power are...

Voices In Opposition Can’t Be Muzzled By Persecuting Those Who Take Up Unpopular Causes: Justice Chandrachud’s 2nd Dissent In The Week

akanksha jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

akanksha jain

Voices In Opposition Can’t Be Muzzled By Persecuting Those Who Take Up Unpopular Causes: Justice Chandrachud’s 2nd Dissent In The Week

akanksha jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

akanksha jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers