Saurav Das@SauravDassss
Wishing Umar and others all the very best. Five years in jail is a long and brutal stretch, enough to reshape a person’s psyche, wear down the soul. It sometimes amazes me how, despite the Supreme Court’s clear jurisprudence that prolonged incarceration, even in a UAPA case, violates the right to a speedy trial and that courts can and must grant bail in such cases, the judiciary has repeatedly failed them all.
I am amazed when I sometimes think about the theatre of complicity that played in their cases. The way successive Chief Justices and other Justices of the Delhi High Court handled Umar’s and others bail pleas’ is not just a lapse. It is a lasting STAIN on the judiciary in modern India.
Worse still was the Supreme Court’s own role. The surreptitious manner in which Chief Justice DY Chandrachud withdrew the matter from a senior, presumably more fairer judge, and had it listed before arguably the most anti-liberty judge on the Court is not a mere administrative decision. It was a betrayal of the idea of a fair, impartial justice. There are moments when I almost feel sorry for the man—the constant criticism, the social media outrage. But then I recall how eloquently he once spoke of dissent as this “safety valve of democracy,” of the Constitution’s moral vision—words that moved many. And yet when the time came to stand firm, to hear the case, to show some spine and push back against executive interference, he folded. Capitulated. It fills one with rage. Here was a man gifted with intellect, platform, and influence—who could have led by example. And yet, he chose silence and complicity. He may eloquently lecture students of the National Law University-Delhi today. But deep down inside, he knows what he did, the lies he spoke, the trust he betrayed, and for these reasons alone, will never be able to hold his head high with self-respect. A man that has betrayed his own soul. His actions in Umar’s case is a stain he will carry to the end.
Justice Manmohan, now a Supreme Court judge, has no less to answer. As Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, he presided over a Kafkaesque game of “passing the parcel” with their bail pleas—cases moved from bench to bench, never listed, judgments held back for 7 to 9 months. The institutional rot wasn’t just visible, but palpable. His inaction, his silence, his administrative complicity—these will remain an indelible STAIN on his career.
One may be an excellent judge in 99% of cases. But it is in that remaining 1%—when the whole nation watches, when justice demands courage under pressure, when institution’s perception is at stake, when the Constitution begs for interpretation with integrity—that is exactly when a judge’s true character is tested. And if in those moments they capitulate, or worse, appear in tandem with the ruling regime, they cease to be judges. They become enablers of tyranny. The Enemies of Justice.
Pardon my French, but today, there are many such frauds masquerading as “Hon’ble Justice”.
