It is a sad day for Indian democracy when cracks in one pillar of our great democracy have come to the fore. Four senior most Judges of SC seem to have been compelled by the circumstances to take extreme step of going to the press. This addressing the press is an unprecedented and an extraordinary event that should make every one sit up and take notice. In my opinion it has been wrongly decried as a “sponsored revolt”. If the respected judges with historic verdicts, under their belt, felt that they didn’t want to sell their souls, they deserve a fair hearing. Though Friday’s press conference is historic as mentioned by justice Chalameswar, it is a known fact that he had some grouse against the functioning of Collegium, which he made abundantly clear and CJ should have addressed his concerns. But it was only after the judges failed to get any remedy from CJI that they came out in public. This was an extraordinary event in history of this institution. They were compelled to act in this way because the CJ couldn’t be persuaded to mend the ways of the court. “We owe responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution” the judges said. During the TV debates, some have expressed that they could have knocked the doors of the President of India. It is a simple solution  which they may have thought of. But having known the Presidential position, they are right, as it doesn’t serve any purpose and now the incident shows the power of democracy. The crux of the matter as I understood is whether the CJ is “ master of roster” or a first among equals. This is an issue concerning one of country’s most respected institutions and the one in which majority of Indians still continue to repose tremendous trust. T he sorry state of affairs which were not disclosed elaborately by the four judges, against CJI tends to lend credence that there is something fishy. General Public is already opining that the judiciary is no longer a Caesar’s wife. The situation seems to have reached a point of no return when Justice Chalameswar was over ruled by present CJ I, in connection with a corruption case in Kerala involving some judges according to the press. Anyway it was not in good taste. As the four judges, integrity is high, and the allegations cannot be ignored. What happened on 12th Jan, is almost hostile atmosphere. Much damage has already been done. The Central Govt deserves to be appreciated for refusing to intervene. If Jaitley has offered his good offices, it must be in his capacity as a member of legal fraternity. As I understood, all judges of SC are juniors in age and professional career to the octogenarian Attorney General Of India K Venugopal. There are some other respectable seniors like Soli Sorabji, and FaliNariman who have been associated with the SC since its initial day’s, and have grown with it. Without insisting on prestige and ego, all the concerned, in the interest of Indian democracy must save the last bastion.

Supreme Court on Monday (8/1/18) adjudged that there was no need to reinvestigate Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination case. With this decision the issue has come an end. Two tragedies struck India in 1948 and people even after seven decades of post independence India still suffers the consequences of those tragedies. One was partition of India amidst bloodbath, and the other was the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, by a fellow Hindu, called Nathuram Godse, When Mahatma was walking to his daily prayer meeting on 30th Jan 1948. In his confession, Godse announced that he pumped three bullets into the chest of Gandhi, as his policy and actions ruined the millions of Hindus and he had no “respect for the policy which was unfairly favourable to Muslims” Godse and Narayan Apte were hanged for this murder, on 15/11/1949. But now it seems, the historians are indulging in hair-splitting over who killed Mahatma. Eminent thinkers like A G Noorani, wrote about Savarkar ,Hindu ideologue, former president Hindu Mahasabha, his alleged involvement in the said assassination. The Kanpur Commission also commented that Savarkar plotted the murder but he was acquitted owing lack of corroborative evidence. Infact, Patel then Home Minister too accepted this view and wrote PM Nehru. Now Dr Pankajphadnis ,a self confessed follower of Savarkar, filled a PIL in SC questioning the belief that three bullets were fired, stating that the “fourth bullet “”fired by a mysterious assassin killed Gandhiji. The petitioner therefore wanted thorough probe, into the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, to identify the mysterious assassin. Keeping aside all this, the Supreme Court, opined that no further probe is needed, into the assassination of Gandhiji, and as per amicus curiae, no substantive material has come to light to throw doubt on any of the above, requiring either reinvestigation or to constitute afresh fact finding Commission.  I feel, he has been killed by the said three bullets, which was proved beyond doubt, and if at all any fourth bullet was there, it was the only politicians of post Independent India, who made mockery of democracy, turned elections a farce, fragmented the society on lines of caste, creed, religion, and created a different culture as such, while stifling dissidence changed the concept of nationalism. Its sad that some people are not prepared to leave even Mahatma Gandhi.

There are no two opinions that the practice of triple talaq is against all canons of justice. But the passage of the bill got mixed responses. After listening to many debates and discussions both in print and electronic media, after passage of the bill in Lok Sabha, the Centre’s justification was commendable, but I fail to understand one important issue here is that, how can divorce despite being a family affair, has now been pushed into criminal sphere. Will our judiciary uphold this? The bill in other words presumes the divorce and proceeds with a punishment of three years jail and fine. This tricky subject needs to be tackled cautiously and there is a need for wider consultations as the hasty moves will evoke suspicions. As per one of debate, the proposed law says, that instant Talaq in any form, spoken in writing or by electronic means, like mail, SMS, and Whatsapp etc would be illegal and void. A provision has been made to imprison, for 3 years with a fine for violators. But what will happen to the family when an earning person (husband) is imprisoned for 3 years? Even when the Congress supported the bill, Salman Khursheed, who is Bar-at-law, and a very senior member of Parliament from UP, Ex-Law Minister had opposed it saying that it is an intrusion into personal lives of an individual and bring divorce, a civil issue, into the realm of criminal law. The debates in English channels are sometimes very educative. What I understood is that the Islamic sharia law itself declares that there is a provision for women, that if she feels that injustice was done, to her, by this Triple Talq she is at liberty to knock the doors of the court. Therefore my personal opinion, is that may or may not prove to be a tool for gender equality, and it needs to be drafted with adequate thought and there is a need to be more sensible and inclusive approach, to issue and we need laws which allow for both marriages and dissolution to take place in less complicated and quick manner. In other Muslim countries like Pakistan a clear procedure has been prescribed, I believe some such thing should have been done. Though the bill has been brought at the instance of Apex Court, I don’t know whether It would be upheld when it is challenged in the court of law.