Be it the Ayodhya judgement or the Binayak Sen verdict, or indeed many others around the country, India’s lower courts are increasing the work of the higher courts, rather than reduce their burden. The sense of outrage that has greeted the verdict of the Raipur sessions court in Chattisgarh, sentencing Dr Sen, a medical doctor, to life imprisonment on the grounds that he had helped Maoist activists in the state, is a compliment to the health of liberal democracy in India, not a blot on it. A former and distinguished judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Rajinder Sachar, captured the popular response to the myopic and misplaced judgement when he termed it “ridiculous and unacceptable”. It is entirely possible that a higher court may overturn the decision. Such a reversal must, however, be based on sound judicial grounds rather than in response to popular sentiment. Far too many in the Indian judicial system are reacting and responding to public sentiment and pressure with an eye on television cameras rather with their eyes blindfolded like Lady Justice. Judicial populism has become a disease, an affliction that runs the risk of creating institutional paralysis.
As several learned observers have said, Dr Sen was discharging his professional duties as a medical doctor and the evidence that he was carrying messages that may have contributed to subversive and seditious acts against the Indian state is thin and unconvincing. As a senior retired police officer put it, there were enough “mitigating circumstances” that the Raipur court should have taken note of while awarding the punishment. This would include, above all, the fact that Dr Sen is a benign human rights activist with a well-known reputation for humanitarian medical work. There is no police record of Naxalite activity on his part. His work has largely been restricted to civil liberties and human rights activity. No citizen of India can be incarcerated for upholding and defending the basic rights enshrined in India’s Republican Constitution.
It is, however, entirely understandable that the security forces fighting Maoists and other extremist groups around the country would feel betrayed by the liberalism that makes the likes of Dr Sen turn a blind eye to the death and destruction that such groups cause. The ordinary foot soldiers of the Indian state, the jawans of the police and security forces, are sacrificing their lives for the safety and well-being of fellow Indians, battling political forces that operate outside the pale of law and the Constitution. Most Maoist groups have become armed gangs that loot and cause mayhem, killing innocent people. Dr Sen has on several occasions dissociated himself from such actions of groups he has offered medical help to. Human rights and civil liberties activists who seek to make government more accountable should also focus their attention on the anti-democratic politics of extremist groups of all hues. The foundations of liberal democracy have to be strengthened in India, and enlightened professionals like Dr Sen should continue that good work. Dr Sen deserves to be free so that he can do so.