advertisement
JNU Students’ Union President Kanhaiya Kumar has finally got bail. At his last hearing on 29 February, the Delhi High Court admonished the police and asked whether they did, in fact, possess video evidence of Kanhaiya’s alleged ‘anti-national’ activities.
The Delhi Police has no such evidence. Yet, Kanhaiya has now spent the better part of the last month in jail.
Is the judiciary powerless to intervene, or at the very least, expedite the hearing of a case where the claims of the Delhi Police have already been brought under serious doubt?
By and large, our courts have stood up for the Constitution and the rights of the individual. However, there has been a time when they almost aided the suspension of our fundamental rights.
The writ of Habeas Corpus translates to “you should have the body”. Broadly, any citizen can file a writ petition in the highest court of the land, challenging an illegal detention.
During the Emergency, arguably the greatest threat to Indian democracy, the Supreme Court ruled overwhelmingly in favour of suspending this basic protection against illegal detention. In effect, they suspended the Right to Freedom, as people could be detained without trial at the whim of the government.
On 28 April 1976, four out of five of the most senior judges in India, including Chief Justice PN Bhagwati, ruled in effect to abrogate the right of citizens to challenge their detention.
Hans Raj Khanna was the sole judge on the bench who wrote a dissenting opinion. His voice was one of the few that stood up for our Constitutional rights.
In 2011, nearly three decades after the judgement, PN Bhagwati, the Chief Justice during the Emergency, said he regretted the decision. He described it as an “act of weakness” in an interview to mylaw.net.
Soon after the Emergency ended in 1977, the Supreme Court began a phase of judicial activism that continues to this day. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) began in 1979 and Justice Bhagwati was among the first to admit PIL petitions in the Supreme Court. PILs have since then, become a way for the public to directly appeal to the judiciary, often against the excesses of the government, police and other branches of the executive.
The right to freedom has become a topic of debate once again since the controversy surrounding the raising of slogans at Jawaharlal Nehru University. It seems a good time to recall the lessons we have learnt from our past.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)