Editorial : Wounding the Spirit of the Constitution of India
Context
Justice S.K. Yadav’s recent speech at the Allahabad High Court demands our serious attention; we cannot dismiss it as inconsequential.
Introduction
As citizens of India, we have committed ourselves to a Constitution that promises justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Yet, we have witnessed a mockery of these principles from within a constitutional court.
Distancing Ourselves Would Be a Disservice
Justice Yadav’s speech blatantly challenges both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. His words act as a dangerous signal, encouraging mob violence under the guise of judicial authority. This isn’t just about his views on specific groups; it’s an attack on all citizens and the very foundation of our democracy. To distance ourselves from this rhetoric is to undermine our collective identity as a nation.
- Impact of Justice Yadav’s Speech: His speech inflicts deep harm, affecting how we live together and interact in a diverse society. It perpetuates religious bigotry and sets a precedent for mob violence, particularly against places of worship. We must not trivialize this incident; it requires a strong response.
- Need for Accountability : The High Court should have condemned Justice Yadav’s speech immediately instead of waiting for external pressure. This calls for a higher standard of judicial accountability. Past experiences show that such inflammatory rhetoric leads to severe consequences, and we must demand better from our judicial system.
- Affirming Collective Dignity and Unity: Mobilizing around the Constitution and its core values is essential for affirming our dignity and unity as a diverse nation. The Constitution is not just a legal document; it is a shared heritage that belongs to all of us.
A Commons
The Constitution should be viewed as a commons, emphasizing shared ownership and responsibility. Our rights and duties as citizens evolve from this collective understanding, rooted in the legacies of leaders like Gandhi and Ambedkar.
- Judicial Role and Disobedience: When judges speak in ways that echo political rhetoric, it is our right and duty to resist. The crisis of judicial propriety demands a response grounded in civil disobedience, as inquiries and reports alone will not suffice.
- Impeachment and Political Realities: While impeachment is a step in the right direction, it risks being symbolic due to the ruling party’s majority in Parliament. True change requires a united stand for constitutional values from all political factions.
Conclusion: The Outlines of a Response
Justice Yadav’s alignment with political interests challenges the integrity of our judiciary and should provoke public discourse on this breach. We must reject humiliation in judicial conduct and embrace our legacy of civil disobedience. The “We” in the Constitution’s Preamble represents a diverse and pluralistic society that believes in its core values. We must ensure that those who uphold the law reflect this spirit, not undermine it.