The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 14th December 2024 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Wounding the spirit of the Constitution of India

Why in News?

We, the people of India, should not overlook Justice S.K. Yadav's speech. It is important that we do not treat his words as insignificant. His speech holds value and deserves our attention. Understanding his message is crucial for us as a society. We must engage with the content and reflect on its significance.

Introduction

• We, the people of India, have made a serious decision to form our country into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.
• Our goal is to ensure justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens.
• We aim to promote fraternity among everyone in the nation.
• However, we have seen a mockery of our constitutional agreement taking place openly.
• This event occurred at a gathering organized within the grounds of a constitutional court, specifically the Allahabad High Court.

Distancing ourselves would be a disservice

• Spirit of Constitution: Recently, a sitting judge openly challenged the spirit and the text of the Constitution of India. His speech acted as a signal that encourages violence among groups inspired by his words and similar views from those in power. 
• Media and Political Response:The harsh remarks made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court have been widely reported in the media. 
  • Opposition Members of Parliament have started an impeachment motion against him.
  • The Supreme Court of India has requested a report on the matter.
  • Concerned citizens have reached out to the Chief Justice of India.
• Public Shock and Grief: These actions do not fully capture the widespread shock, sadness, and anger that many feel at such public humiliation and violent speech coming from a position of justice. 
• Speech as an Assault on Citizens:The judge's speech is harmful to all citizens of India and is not just an attack on specific groups like Muslims or protesters. 
  • This is not merely Justice Yadav's opinion on one community, nor is it just an isolated incident.
  • Ignoring his comments undermines our shared understanding of what it means to be a united India.
• Impact of Justice Yadav’s Speech:His words cause deep harm to everyone. 
  • They affect our ability to think, share knowledge, and live together harmoniously.
  • They also contribute to the injuries caused by religious intolerance, impacting various aspects of our lives, including our homes and places of worship.
• Consequences of Soft Bigotry and Mob Violence: We have seen how subtle forms of bigotry can lead to mob violence, particularly against places of worship. 
• Need for Accountability:We must not dismiss Justice Yadav’s speech as insignificant. 
  • The High Court that allowed this speech should have condemned it strongly.
  • The court should have acted before the Supreme Court had to step in following public protests.
• Call for Judicial Accountability: This situation requires a stronger response for judicial accountability, rather than just quiet reprimands within the judiciary itself. 
• Past Consequences of Incitement: We have witnessed the serious effects of such harmful rhetoric in the past decade and the lasting damage it causes. 
• Affirming Collective Dignity and Unity:It is crucial for citizens, elected officials, and members of the judiciary to come together around the values of the Constitution. 
  • We must communicate across different languages and faiths to uphold our shared dignity and the unity of India.

A commons

• Constitution and Citizen's Rights: The writer believes that the Constitution of India and our rights as citizens are shaped by both the historical ideas of constitutionalism and our current realities.
• Broad Interpretation: Understanding the Constitution and our rights should not be limited to past legal decisions. The essence of the Constitution is not just for judges to interpret; it belongs to everyone.
• Constitution-as-Commons: We should view the Constitution as something we all share. This means we need a common understanding to use it for the greater good, as highlighted in the Preamble and the ideas of civil disobedience from various leaders.
• Collective Legacy: The concept of Satyagraha (nonviolent resistance) is part of our shared heritage, with influences from figures like Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, Jaipal Munda, Dakshayani Velayudhan, Anis Kidwai, and A.K. Gopalan.
• Judicial Role and Disobedience: When judges act like rulers, disobedience becomes a necessary way to restore justice.
• Crisis of Judicial Standards: The current situation shows a breakdown in what is considered judicial propriety. The only way to fix this is through civil disobedience.
• Inquiries and Consequences: Investigations, explanations, and formal reprimands will not solve the underlying problems.
• Impeachment and Political Dynamics: While impeachment is a positive step, it may only be symbolic. It is likely to fail if Judge Yadav's political allies have a strong presence in Parliament, unless unexpected support for the Constitution comes from those in the ruling group.

Conclusion

• It is unfortunate that S.K. Yadav, in his role as a judge, appears to have political influences guiding him.
• This situation should lead to serious thought and discussion among citizens who serve as judges, as the line between judicial and political speech has been crossed.
• To restore dignity and reject public embarrassment in how judges act and speak, we need to consider actions that draw from our rich history of civil disobedience and satyagraha.
• We should develop strategies to resist allowing someone who uses such language to judge our cases or to judge alongside us.
• The term ‘We’ in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution does not refer to a random mix of people defined as Hindu, whether they consent or not.
• Instead, the ‘We’ represents a people formed by the Constitution, a diverse and non-religious group that is incredibly varied and believes in the principles and core values of the Constitution.

Welcome spotlight

Why in News?

The Supreme Court's renewed focus on keeping an eye on Manipur is a positive development.

Introduction

• The ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur has led the Supreme Court of India to step in.
• The Court has instructed the state government to provide information about properties that have been destroyed or illegally occupied.
• Even though the responsibility for addressing this issue falls mainly on the state and union governments, the Court's involvement is essential because of the seriousness of the violence and the lack of action from the government.
• A committee, headed by Justice Gita Mittal, is in charge of looking into the situation and providing humanitarian aid.
• This committee's goal is to help bring back peace while the violence and political divisions continue.

Hearing a Case on Ethnic Violence in Manipur

• Petitioners who are upset due to ongoing conflicts in Manipur have brought their case to the court. 
• The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Manipur government to provide information regarding properties that have been destroyed or encroached upon as a result of ethnic violence that occurred a year and a half ago.

Role of Justice Gita Mittal-led Committee

• The Court recently decided to extend the time frame for the Committee led by Justice Gita Mittal.
• This Committee is in charge of overseeing the investigations into violence.
• It is also responsible for managing humanitarian assistance and providing relief in the State.
• The extension was granted a few months ago.

Judicial Intervention and Government’s Responsibilities

• Court's Role vs. Government's Responsibility: Ideally, the actions taken should have been the responsibility of the executive branch, specifically the State government and the Union Home Ministry, rather than falling under the Court's authority.
• Reason for Court's Involvement: The Court felt compelled to step in because of the disturbing reports of sexual violence, widespread destruction of property including religious sites, and ongoing tensions between the two ethnic groups in the State.
• Judiciary's Necessity Due to Government Inaction: The higher judiciary had to take action due to the Union government's reluctance to address concerns raised by civil society and political opposition regarding the State's situation. Additionally, the State government has failed to hold itself accountable and has not effectively worked to mend the divisions between ethnic groups.
• Political Divisions Within Parties: There is a notable divide among political representatives, even within the same parties, as they are split along ethnic lines. This has resulted in minimal agreement on the political demands from opposing sides.

Rise of Non-State Actors and Armed Violence

• Non-state actors: There is a growing number of non-state groups that carry advanced weapons, many of which have been stolen from government stockpiles. These groups are trying to influence the political landscape in illegal ways.
• Violence in new areas: These groups have started committing acts of violence in regions like Jiribam, which previously did not experience any ethnic conflicts.

National Attention on Manipur’s Ethnic Violence

• Violence attracts attention only when it escalates: The tragic situation in Manipur starts to get noticed nationally only when the violence becomes extreme and reaches unacceptable levels.
• Unlikely to return to the previous state: Even though the government claims to be working on restoring law and order and resolving political disagreements, going back to how things were before May 2023 seems unlikely.

Court’s Role and Government’s Secrecy

• Need for meaningful steps: The Court's increased focus is a positive development. However, without taking real actions to address the ongoing conflicts, this effort will not be complete.
• Government's secrecy and national security rhetoric: The lawyers for the government have tried to keep the workings and results of the committee hidden, using the old argument of "national security."
• Court's responsibility in overseeing transparency: The Court should not fall for this tactic, which seems more aimed at distracting from the issues rather than contributing to real solutions for the conflict.

Global Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

• Focus on accountability and normative actions: Around the globe, efforts to resolve conflicts have mainly targeted methods like "truth and reconciliation" initiatives. These approaches prioritize holding individuals accountable and taking normative actions, which is something that is currently lacking in Manipur.
• Potential impact of the committee's findings: The results from the committee could provide the essential momentum needed to move towards positive change.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court stepping in during the ethnic violence in Manipur shows how urgent it is to deal with the growing conflict.
• Normally, such issues should be handled by the state and union governments, but the Court's involvement points to a lack of effective political leadership.
• There has been an increase in the influence of non-state actors, which complicates the situation further.
• The committee led by Justice Mittal plays an important role in ensuring that those responsible are held accountable and in helping to find real solutions.
• Achieving lasting peace and reconciliation in the region will require efforts focused on transparency and accountability. 
• Only through combined efforts can meaningful progress be made to resolve the underlying issues causing the conflict.