Violence Takes Precedence Over Rights: A Rising Concern in India | Representational Image
The right to use violence appears to have supplanted the right to work in peace or to practice, profess, and propagate oneтАЩs religion as guaranteed by Article 25. In parts of the country, Christians were allegedly prevented from celebrating Christmas in stray incidents.
However, leaving religion aside, what left litigants aghast was an incident involving the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Rajatalab, Varanasi. On Tuesday, the SDM became the cynosure of all eyes on the tehsil premises when he decided to hold court proceedings from his SUV.
The SDM, accompanied by trainee IAS officer Ashrith Shakamuri, who bagged the 40th rank in the UPSC exam in 2022 and holds a B.Tech degree from BITS, Pilani, ought to have been well aware of the law. The decision to conduct proceedings from his vehicle stemmed from an altercation with a lawyer. The lawyer had submitted an application seeking an order around 11 a.m., but the attached report was several months old. The SDM decided to issue a fresh date for an updated report to be filed.
This decision roused the lawyerтАЩs ire, leading to a heated argument. The lawyer reportedly threatened the SDM, vowing to disrupt court proceedings. Other lawyers joined him in blocking the main gate of the court, thereby preventing litigants from entering or leaving the premises.
Faced with such obstruction, the SDM decided to hold court from his official SUV. тАЬI decided to hold court proceedings from my official SUV, and announcements were made using the loudspeaker installed in the vehicle to summon litigants,тАЭ he stated.
For over an hour, a bemused crowd witnessed the spectacle of an orderly shouting out court cases via the loudspeaker as statements were recorded near the vehicle. Senior lawyers eventually approached the SDM and requested him to return to the courtroom. Proceedings resumed within the court chamber thereafter.
The incident underscores a serious breach of law and order. Provisions under the repealed Indian Penal Code and its revamped version clearly define what constitutes a threat. The lawyerтАЩs actions, including blocking access to the court, amount to obstructing the administration of justiceтАФan act of criminal contempt of court.
Although the SDM lacks contempt powers, he should have immediately contacted the Allahabad High Court administration and the Director General of Police (DGP) to arrest the offending lawyers. The police would have been compelled to act, arresting and charge-sheeting the lawyers. The SDMтАЩs failure to act decisively may reflect either ignorance or a desire to avoid escalating an already volatile situation.
Incidents of lawyers intimidating magistrates are not new. The Delhi Bar, including those practicing in the Tis Hazari courts, has earned a reputation for aggressive behavior. However, as officers of the court, lawyers have a duty to uphold its dignity rather than obstruct its functioning.
The behavior of lawyers mirrors the conduct of some MPs who engage in physical altercations outside Parliament. For instance, an FIR was lodged against Rahul Gandhi following such an incident. In another case, lawyers at the Karnataka High Court physically prevented Justice Bangalore Nagarathna from leaving her courtroom in 2009. Justice Nagarathna, now set to become IndiaтАЩs first female Chief Justice of India, was no stranger to such intimidation tactics.
Another disturbing trend is the intimidation of minorities, such as Christians, from celebrating festivals like Christmas. Stray incidents in districts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh saw Sangh Parivar groups and others from the saffron brigade threatening Christians and convent schools. The opposition to ValentineтАЩs Day is well-documented, but efforts to prevent Christmas celebrations warrant equal condemnation.
Ironically, the Catholic BishopsтАЩ Conference of India (CBCI) invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the chief guest for their Christmas celebration on December 23. This gesture underscores the communityтАЩs willingness to engage despite majoritarian pressures.
The right to violence seems to be replacing the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 21, which states that no one can be deprived of their life or liberty except through due process of law. However, when lawmakers themselves are accused of wielding violence, as the Opposition alleges, it sets a dangerous precedent. The Sangh ParivarтАЩs monopoly on violence, coupled with its majoritarian agenda, appears to have permeated all levels of governance.
Sociologist Max Weber defined the state as a тАЬhuman communityтАЭ that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. This concept is being exploited by those seeking to impose a singular vision of religion, culture, and nationhood. Without the use of force, the Sangh Parivar cannot realize its vision of тАЬone religion, one people, one language, one culture, one nation.тАЭ
In a nation striving to maintain democratic ideals, incidents like these blur the line between mobocracy and democracy. When majoritarianism disguises itself as utilitarianism, minoritiesтАФincluding judicial officersтАФare left vulnerable. As the CBCI seeks to coexist with majoritarian rule, the question remains: will mobocracy continue to masquerade as democracy?
Olav Albuquerque holds a Ph.D. in law and is a senior journalist-cum-advocate at the Bombay High Court.
