How Hindus can counter the judicial tyranny

The judicial intervention in social life of Hindus is increasing by leaps and bounds and there seems to be no respite. To understand how to fight back, Hindus need to look at the functioning of Indian power system.

How does the spectrum of politics look like: citizens < law < judicial whims < politics. This is how things stand as of today. Politics is above everything. Politics reaches the masses, judiciary/justice never reaches the masses, it is highly theoretical. Therefore seasoned politicians use this space to break the law as a means to offer resistance to the whims of the judiciary on behalf of the public. If the public feels that it is justified (like the khadi movement, or non-co-operation movement) then the politician stands to gain some brownie points from it. Politics is how the lowest common denominator, i.e. the common man, gets his justice delivered to him.

The recent verdict on Dahi Handi was an absolutely stupid order from the SC and it needs to be challenged by someone. The judiciary cannot just encroach over civilian aspects and preach their ‘separation of powers’ lecture to others. SC needs to be put in its place and shown that the same ‘separation of powers’ principle applies to them too.

Another example of judicial flip-flops- there was some divorced man, who as per law stopped paying maintenance to his daughter and wife as the daughter had turned 18 and by virtue of being an adult she is counted as non-dependent. But the HC made him pay the money and said that “you cannot hide behind the law”. Really? What do you mean HIDE behind the law? The reason a law exists is based on the premise that it will be consistently applied in all cases and removes uncertainty from the justice department. The law said that he doesn’t need to pay it so he stopped paying it. Instead, when it is convenient to the court, they use the law, but when common man uses the law, he is chided for being someone who ‘hides behind the law’. How is he HIDING behind it if he is only following what it says? So what happened was that the judge, based on his personal whims and fancies said that in India children don’t become independent at 18 unlike USA so the father has a moral responsibility to fund her education until PG plus he must pay private tuition fees too plus for her wedding. Really Mr Black Coat? Now are we giving judgement based on moral whims? What is the use of a written and codified law then? We might better have Khap panchayats then, which at least deliver justice on time rather than take 2 decades for simple cases.

So next time any husband is asked to pay alimony by any court, the husband’s lawyer must argue, “morally speaking, I don’t feel like paying it” or when someone is sentenced to death, the convict must say “Dear judge, morally speaking, I feel that you have no right to take my life, so I choose to walk out of this trial”. Next time a traffic cop stops me for not wearing seat belt, I will say “morally speaking, I don’t feel like obeying the rules today”. If everyone starts interpreting the rules as they want, the very phrase ‘rules’ will become a paradox. Or does the SC think that it is the only body which has this privilege to act on its whims and fancies?

The SC should stop putting its stinking nose in matters where it is not qualified to do so. There is a reason they have such low respectability in Indian society. If they keep up with their stupid judicial activism, no common man will ever look at the judicial system as a temple of justice, just a pack of bureaucratic wolves waiting to devour his money based on what they feel is their inalienable god-given right.

SC is dysfunctional because it takes 4 months holiday in a year. These people don’t work, but just sit there to suck commissions from court cases like a goon who does hafta vasooli from everyone who comes at his doorstep. Instead of fast tracking the justice delivery mechanism for the sake of the commoners and laying out guidelines to lower courts, the SC keeps itself busy in pompous debates about one or the other constitutional interpretation or some other high brow intellectual masturbation. The SC judge cries like a baby when cases are pending. Thankfully the government introduced a new parallel form of judiciary in the form of appellate courts. This will take the monopoly away from the inefficient judiciary and end their gala fest at the expense of the taxpayer. There must be decentralization within the judiciary too. The people (or a representative of the people) or a technocratic body must have a say in appointment of judges. They should not be allowed to appoint their own successors as if its their family business, in contempt of the common people’s opinion. Their salaries are paid by the taxpayer after all. Let Modi starve the judiciary and bring it to its knees. These people as a group think too highly of themselves but deliver no value to the society. Only nuisance value to rob money from false dowry cases and false rape cases while genuine family property feuds go on for decades after the claimants are long dead. What a shame!

The SC speaks about good faith, let them first show some good faith by giving up the feudal system of collegium and embrace a more meritocratic system. The SC doesn’t have the market cornered on victimhood. We have our own concerns which they must address before we release payments to them. They can’t keep asking for appointment of more judges, more payments, more buildings while stonewalling reforms and transparency.

We have all heard the phrase ’eminent lawyer’, ever wondered what does it mean? How is an eminent lawyer different from a non-eminent lawyer, does he know a few secret sections of the penal code which others don’t? Obviously not. So what’s so special about him? It only means that he is a chamcha of the judge and therefore the client has a higher probability of winning the case if he pays hefty fees to that eminent lawyer who has a revenue-sharing arrangement with the judge so there is a higher probability of judgement in your favor if you hire the right one. This is what the judiciary has turned into. There’s no justice there, just money eating business. That is why the rich always go scott free and the poor gets no justice.

The real money in judicial business lies in NOT solving the cases promptly, hence “taareek pe taareek”. If they start solving things fast then how will they earn more money under the table? They have a vested interest in keeping the system inefficient so that they could charge people in exchange for efficiency. So, they will say, “I can schedule your next hearing after 6 months but if you pay me X amount, I MAY schedule it next week. It’s all up to you, if you want prompt hearing then pay up”.

There are two distinct things govt has now done, one is appellate courts outside the purview of the current collegium and other is allowing private law firms. There must also be a new law introduced to make it mandatory to video record all court proceedings (after all, we call them free and fair and open courts for a reason). Government must keep copies and also be legally bound to provide any copy to anyone who files an RTI. This will instill fear among lawyers and judges because if they are found slacking off, their video clip might appear in prime time news.

At the same time, if someone feels that the judge assigned to his case is being biased (eg : Feminazi judge) then he can take that clipping to the appellate court or a disciplinary panel or even consumer forum. Basically create an overlap of authority instead of giving the reigns of the entire judicial system to a single monolithic, self-serving body. They have grown fat by eating tax payer’s money, let them get a taste of how it feels to actually be productive in exchange for claiming a salary. Every judge must be under fear that his judgement will be scrutinized by another panel if someone complains about them. Also there must be transparent appointments, and mandatory to disclose the productivity graph of not only those judges who got appointed but also those who got rejected so that there is no favoritism and a deserving judge does not get lost out just because he wasn’t a bootlicker.

Basically, take the judges out of the comfort zone which they have created to cushion themselves. The three tier system is open to too much nepotism and needs extra intervention. Make them feel the same insecurity which a common man feels when he goes to court and then they will start taking the common man more seriously instead of playing with his future and stealing his money.

Social media broke the monopoly of conventional electronic media. Blogging and online degrees broke the monopoly of so-called premier educational institutes. Open source software broke the monopoly of enterprise software giants, similarly, something disruptive needs to happen to break the monopoly of the judiciary. The judiciary shouldn’t be completely wiped out but it should have a private sector competition so that both keep a check on each other. For example, people can get together and form co-operative institutions for arbitration in case of disputes. So if you and I have a property dispute, instead of taking you to a court and wasting our money bidding for lawyers, we can go to the arbitration center and settle the matter, no black coats involved. This arbitration center can be a private institution whose services we mutually agree to avail. This is already happening to some extent through Competition Authority of India, but one can also think of private institutions.

The crux of the matter is, the more of our problems we solve within ourselves, the less opportunity the law has to interfere. If a husband and wife or their family can sort their issues, no dowry law can intervene (anyway a large number of dowry cases gets settled outside courtrooms by exchanging some money). The more you allow the courts to micro-manage your life, the more they will suck your blood. We must have a strong consensus among ourselves as citizens, not to avail the services of an institution which is innately corrupt. Let the black coats rot in their own corner. Let us set up our own private arbitration courts (like insurance agencies), and resolve our own issues. Use the court premises only to do unavoidable paperwork deeds like house registration etc. Every time a common man has been there, he gets looted, even for simple things like domicile certificate, or attestation of some papers. They delay your work deliberately and ask money to do it ‘faster’, which in itself is a paradox. First you yourself create artificial scarcity of resource (time) and then jack up the prices in exchange for merely doing your job on time.

When people like Kanhiya Kumar were shouting “Afzal hum sharminda hai, tere kaatil zinda hai” was the court sleeping then? How come they did not take suo motto cognizance of the contempt of the judiciary? How come no suo motto cognizance during Shia processions where blood is spilled? Now the courts have ruined the careers of so many Govindas who pursue Dahi Handi as a full time profession. They practice all year long and earn only once during the year. This is their only source of livelihood. Is the SC judge going to feed all these jobless people from his own kitchen now? On the other side the courts forced Maharashtra government to open dance bars using the same argument, asking the government “so many bar girls will be jobless, will you feed them? You can’t deny employment to people for arbitrary moral reasons”. Well, hypocrisy thy name is Indian judiciary!

Same with Jallikattu, as it helps breed better generation of cows/bulls through natural mate selection. But our over smart judiciary banned that too. They call themselves guardians of the constitution, and the constitution mentions India as a democratic nation, so where is the democracy when judiciary makes adhoc rules without elected people’s representation? Is this not fascism by the unelected?

  • Arya.Singh

    Another important thing is bringing back jury trials & jury nullification. It would probably stop most cultural marxism in its tracks, with current rte though it’s risky.

    Really though, panchayat + ban on abrahamic is best way. What’s point of unified Hindu state, if it’s not used for our interests? Just giving credibility to Khalistani otherwise

  • BvB09

    Sw. Dayananda Sarasvati (Arsha Vidya) once lamented, “Hindus are maNDUs” (The word “maNDu” in Tamil means “idiot”). Alas, he is turning out to be right but isn’t around anymore to lead the fight.