Supreme Court’s definition of urgency takes precedence over ‘important’ | Suo moto on infants death at Shaheen Bagh but not heard matter of 25 deaths in UP in anti-CAA protest

Supreme Court suo moto

The Hush Post| 1:29 pm|one-minute-read|

Supreme Court’s ‘definition’ of urgency takes precedence over important. And the choices we make reflect the state of affairs and how weak or strong we are.

What the Supreme Court chooses or what not to….that is the question here. The question is regarding the matters of urgency and the choice the highest court of the country, the Supreme Court, has made about them.

India’s Supreme Court priorities are the following:

  • It wants to hear the matter of an infant dying — suo moto — after being brought to the Shaheen Bagh protests. It also separately heard on Monday, February 10, the matter of the protests obstructing traffic.
  • However,  the Supreme Court has not heard the matter where 25 protestors have been killed (I would say murdered) by the police in Uttar Pradesh.
  • The apex court has also not heard the matter pertaining to the government of UP illegally confiscating without process the property of protestors against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
  • The Supreme Court has not intervened in the matter of children being interrogated multiple times by police in Bidar. Here a school play critical of Narendra Damodardas Modi was enacted.
  • Also, the apex court has not heard the matter of Kashmiri leaders being locked up without charge or trial. The Supreme Court has not given Kashmiris the right to use the Internet.
  • The Supreme Court has not stayed the CAA. Though the judges were told there is a danger that this has created serious turmoil and unrest.
  • The Supreme Court has not given justice to 1,000 people in Assam’s concentration camps, who are jailed without crime and families have been separated with no way and no mechanism of getting out.
  • The Supreme Court has not intervened when the Modi government announced that all non-Muslims in these camps would be freed. Only the Muslims would remain in jail.
  • The Supreme Court has not heard the issue of when the Muslims among the 19 lakh people not included in Assam’s National Register of Citizens will get the chance to prove their citizenship.
  • The Supreme Court has not heard the matter of the serious irregularities in the conduction of the Assam NRC. These include the BJP government’s extension of two-year contracts to those workers who declared maximum people illegal, and the Supreme Court has not heard the cases of those people who were declared foreigners because of spelling mistakes and differing dates in their documents.
  • The Supreme Court has taken away the land on which the Babri Masjid stood. Inadvertently, it went to those who broke the mosque down.
  • The NRC and the NPR have been illegally linked together. However, the Supreme Court has not heard that matter or thought it important to list.

The fact is the Supreme Court of India has shown in its conduct what it chooses to hear and what it chooses not to or to obliterate for the time being. In ordinary times, this would not be too much of a matter of concern. (The story first appeared in rediff.com. The above are excerpts from it)

Leave a Reply