Is the path to god one of anarchy?

Criticising a Supreme Court judgment is one facet of democracy, but physically violating the enforcement of the ruling, is just unacceptable promotion of anarchy

The state of Kerala is the epicentre of unrest. Ranging from a retired Supreme Court judge at one end of the spectrum to the rabid-law-illiterate, a concerted vocal bunch of critics is incessantly attacking the majesty of the Supreme Court in their opposition to a Constitutional Bench’s ruling in the Sabarimala case. The choice of words, quite apart from the choice of arguments, and in particular, personalised ad hominem attacks on individual judges is incessant among some of the devout.

Religion has always been a holy cow in our Republic. “Hum jail jayenge lekin fine nahi bharenge,” said a popular “guru” with a penchant for a double-prefixed honorific, when a penalty was imposed on him by the environment law tribunal for desecrating the environment around the Yamuna river. His gigantic festivities entailed our armed forces building the infrastructure for his events. The head of state graced his event. The impunity in his conduct was writ large. Many “literate” talking heads did not think too poorly about how strident the “guru” was and the example a teacher was setting for the society. In fact, some who would otherwise pontificate on dharma and karma defended his contemptuous conduct — not in an apologist form.

Sabarimala has created a different league for this attitude. Not a day has passed in recent weeks without some message ranging from the nasty to the sad to the ridiculous, being received on social media, particularly by some of the devout who make the pilgrimage to the shrine. The point is not about whether one agrees with the judgment or whether a judgment may be criticised. This column will not go into the merits of that case at all — suffice it to say this author does not share the anxiety and angst suffered by those who disagree with the judgment. But the point surely is the virulence with which society is headed firmly in the direction of anarchy unless people in responsible positions who have taken to criticising the verdict introspect and engage in course correction.

It is not for nothing that one has the adage the Supreme Court is not final because it is right, but the Supreme Court is always right because it is final. If we are to have a Republic that is secure in the rule of law, we have to learn to respect the verdicts delivered by the Supreme Court, no matter how much one may disagree with it. Criticising the judgment is one facet of democracy, but physically violating and preventing the enforcement and acceptance of a ruling, is just unacceptable promotion of anarchy.

Illustration: Binay Sinha

First, unlike most of the law-making in India, a ruling by the Supreme Court is not a product involving an absence of public consultation. We do not have either a formal requirement or a substantial practice of public consultations and deliberations before a new law is introduced. The government agencies and departments that pilot laws made by them through Parliament are loath to engage with the public on draft law. Worse, Presidential Ordinances are known to be issued with laws taking effect overnight. On the other hand, a court ruling, particularly on a matter such as this case, is one that is conducted in full public view, with the right of citizens to intervene and be heard and participate in the process of judicial review. Now, when all of these efforts are indeed taken, and the outcome is unpalatable, the only way to ensure we have a sane society where anarchy does not prevail, is to accept the outcome and move on to closure. Not doing so, and worse, promoting the rejection of a verdict of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is anarchist in character.

Second, picture any unpalatable verdict of the highest court of the land not being accepted and enforcement of the decision being positively defied. Say, the rate at which you have to pay income tax is challenged and the courts disagree with you. If one starts saying one disagrees with the ruling and heaps scorn on judges not being aware of the perceived problems with paying tax, there would be a breakdown of social order. This is true for non-acceptance of any verdict flowing from the Constitution. Another hypothetical example that comes to mind is a dictatorial Prime Minister who loses elections, potentially refusing to vacate office. It would be a case of total anarchy. The protests against the Sabarimala verdict, with defiance of court orders being at the core of it, is a clear pointer to a march to anarchy.  Imagine, the Supreme Court ruling on the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid dispute, leading to either Hindus or Muslims refusing the accept the outcome, and instead instigating mobs to “reject” and frustrate the verdict. Or imagine, every person who illegally occupies any property, refusing to vacate it despite losing in the Supreme Court — all these are examples of the breakdown of the rule of law.

Of course, one has a right to critically examine a verdict and deal with flaws in the rationale adopted in arriving at a judgment. No one can quarrel with that. However, if one were to show utter disregard to honouring the ultimate court’s ultimate verdict, and instead, if one were to promote vigilante activism to oppose and frustrate the verdict, one would truly be the aligned with the dreaded concept of being a “Maoist”, committed to overthrow the state and the Constitution of India. 

The author is an advocate and independent counsel Tweets @SomasekharS