Dear Mrs. Indira Jaising,
It was while during a train journey that I logged into my Facebook account and had the occasion to see your ‘Open Letter’ to India’s judges shared by one of my friends, published in one of the ‘Left-leaning’ platforms ‘The Wire.in’ run by S. Vardarajan, the former editor-in-chief of ‘The Hindu’. In recent time, this is your second piece targeting India’s judges and judiciary for not acting in conformity with your ideology, though you have very well tried to camouflage it with the distemper of self-interpreted ‘Constitutional principles’. Your first piece was ‘The Indian Courts are on trial’ in context of Teesta Setalvad’s episode.
In your ‘Open Letter’ to India’s judges, apart from the other things, you have attempted to sarcastically put out your selective anguish over the selective part of the bail order containing virulent remarks made by the High Court of Delhi, castigating Kanhaiya and his team for allegedly indulging in ‘anti-India slogans shouting’, while granting bail to him. You have termed the undertaking demanded by the High Court from Kanhaiya to refrain himself from indulging in such activities in future as ‘the onerous, oppressive and unconstitutional’ and have emphasized that ‘there can’t be anticipatory restraint on free speech’. You have also tried to preach about nationalism and the meaning of what constitutes ‘anti-national’ activity.
To quote you from your open letter “Surely, as judges, you all know that there is no such offence as ‘anti-national’ act in any of the statute books in India.” I am sure, you have got your facts right. But, tell me Mrs. Indira Jaising, which statute book in India defines ‘Intolerance’ as an offence?? The gang of self-proclaimed intellectuals left no stone unturned to malign India’s reputation on International podium, claiming of ‘Intolerance’ in the country, which even though admitted for the sake of assumption, is not a legally-defined offence under any law of the land. Surely, India’s judges knew this, and perhaps which is why the newly appointed Chief Justice of India, Justice T.S. Thakur had to beckon of its political connection. Will you identically write an ‘Open Letter’ to the gang of self-certified intellectuals educating them that there is no such offence as ‘Intolerance’ in any of the statute books in India and ask them to apologize for the term that they malafidely manufactured to defame the nation internally and externally?
I also wish to learn from you Mrs. Indira Jaising, since you have been a former Addl. Solicitor General of India that in which Indian rule book the offence of ‘Communalism’ is defined which you and your gang of self-styled secular champions and infected intellectuals keep singing the biased song of? As a law student, I am entirely flabbergasted that a former Addl. Solicitor General of India is dismissing the occurrence of ‘anti-national’ activities on the fallacious premise that it is not legally defined. May I have the opportunity to remind one of the India’s former Addl. Solicitor Generals, with all due respect, that the Constitutional doctrine, which has hitherto successfully saved India’s democracy and its quintessential spirit, was never defined – ‘The Basic Structure Doctrine’? I am sure that there was no legally-defined provision too, to wake up the Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Anil R Dave at 1:30 am in the night, to get a stay of the execution order for Nithari Killings convicts Surinder Koli, who was set to be hanged the same day morning.
You in your letter to judges have claimed that ‘you don’t want our soldiers to come in coffins in the name of nationalism’ but have left us in confusion whether you want or not to come them in coffins being a victim of Maoism. You have termed Kanhaiya’s speech after his release worth listening and in a way have suggested the judges to listen to it. Not only this, you have gone to the extent of asking the judges whether Kanhaiya’s speech after his release appeared to be national or anti-national. But, I completely failed to understand Mrs. Indira Jaising, that why didn’t you suggest the judges to listen to that pledge of ‘Bharat tere tukde honge, Insaa allah Insaa allah’ and ‘Bharat ki barbadi tak Jang rahegi jari’ in a university campus, where Mr. Kanhaiya was the president of the Students Union. Why did you choose to conveniently ignore to discuss about these threatening pledges in your ‘Open Letter’ to India’s judges. Your letter discusses everything, inter alia, free speech, nationalism, the task of judiciary, your own concept of truth and justice, but doesn’t bother to touch the real issue of ‘breaking-India dreams of few students’ even once.
Your letter discusses that ‘It is not without reason that Article 352 of the Indian Constitution speaks about external aggression; internal sovereignty belongs to us – We the People. I consent you without reservation that the sovereignty belongs to us – We the People, but tell me Mrs. Jaisingh, can the state be a silent spectator if few students on its soil and that too on the tax-payer money resolve to continue their fight till the downfall of the Indian state and threaten to break India into pieces? Isn’t it an extreme paradox Mrs. Indira Jaising that you are finding the cover of Constitutional provisions for them who vowed to break India into pieces, which is run by the same Constitution?
I am sure, I do not need to lecture you about free speech, especially when you have preferred to turn a nelson eye towards the constitutionally imposed limitations of free speech as enumerated in Art. 19(2) of the Constitution. In the United States, in the seminal case of Stromberg v. California in 1931, it was held that “no states can, therefore, tolerate utterances which threaten to overthrow the organized government by unlawful or unconstitutional means.” However precious the freedom of speech may be in a democratic society, the means can never override the end it self.
Indira Jaising Ji You have ended your letter beautifully but quite ironically as well. You said that, while arguing a case in the Supreme Court recently, you had occasion to tell the judges that “Your tragedy is you enter a Court from the back door, you don’t see what is written over your heads. I enter from the front door, the first thing I see every morning is “Satyameva Jayate”
I see a stark contrast between the history of your actions and speeches and what you have told the judges in the Court. In my opinion your tragedy is “You start turning the pages of statute books to say that there is no such legally defined offence as ‘anti-national activity’ but have been constantly crying of intolerance in the country, which too is not a legally defined offence”. The tragedy is also this Mrs. Indira Jaising that you constantly keep targeting Indian higher judiciary and its judges on different pretext but successfully wakes up the Chief Justice of India at the wee hours of the night to get a stay order. I think that your tragedies are real tragedy Mrs. Indira Jaising and what you mentioned to the judges in the Court room are a manufactured tragedy since they sit there in chair after taking an oath, the contents of which is always in their mind and what is behind their heads are indeed meant for the lawyers.