If hers was an oblique critique of the BCI for its decision with respect to Nalsar, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan (in picture) was more explicit when he said students expressing a different point of view or asking questions cannot be threatened with punitive action. Such an approach is unconstitutional and a misuse of power, the Supreme Court judge explained. — File Image

Political movements in India have very little to do with the judiciary historically except when the courts are called upon to decide on cases on their legal merit, and not in their political or social context. But the birth of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) spurred by a comment of the Chief Justice of India has had its reverberations, positively impacting the thought process of the young generation. While the CJI was not very particularly sympathetic to them in the initial phase, he and other judges of the Supreme Court have now come in support of them. It is a welcome development in that the Generation Z will now be encouraged to raise probing questions before the government without fearing for a backlash from the judiciary.

After CJI Surya Kant publicly admonished the Bar Council of India (BCI) for its shock decision to ban the enrolment of students of Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad, for their protest to invite him as the chief guest at its convocation, students in several institutions in the country have raised their objections to the invites extended to the CJI and the chairman of the BCI for functions on their campuses. It marks a break from the past when no one, leave alone students, will publicly air their differences of opinion with the judges, whatever the topic be.

After the CJI, more judges have voiced their opinion about a matter in which the seemingly powerless students were engaged in a fight with the all-powerful organisation such as the BCI. Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court has publicly stated that the Bar Councils must introspect on their role and importance in upholding professional ethics, morality and professional competence. "When a Bar Council does not earn the respect of its members, it is not a good sign for the legal profession," she said.

If hers was an oblique critique of the BCI for its decision with respect to Nalsar, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was more explicit when he said students expressing a different point of view or asking questions cannot be threatened with punitive action. Such an approach is unconstitutional and a misuse of power, the Supreme Court judge explained. He also highlighted the idea of a university where “established positions can be examined and questioned” and disagreements are not met with hostility. A university should be where the habit of thinking freely begins, and a student does not hesitate to ask difficult questions, he said.

While the nuanced position of the individual judges of the apex court on the rights of the students, and the general public, is welcome, it will produce the desired result of promoting discourses and strengthening democracy only when it translates into judicial action. There are scores of people, students included, languishing in Indian jails charged under draconian laws for questioning government policies or the laws. Examples of university officials acting as the stooges of the establishment smothering dissent can be found across the country. The instances of the judiciary coming to the aid of the dissenters are scarce. It is time the highest court in the land sent out the firm message that a difference of opinion is not a crime and threatening the dissenters with punitive action is "unconstitutional and a misuse of power".

Tags: