An alarming trend in India

The right to use violence appears to have superseded the right to work in peace or to practice, profess and propagate one’s religion, as guaranteed by Article 25. In some parts of the country, Christians were allegedly prevented from celebrating Christmas due to incidents of homelessness.

However, religion aside, what horrified the litigants was an incident involving the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rajathalam, Varanasi. On Tuesday, the SDM became the main spectator in the tehsil area when he decided to hold court proceedings from his SUV.

The SDM, accompanied by trainee IAS officer Ashrit Shakamuri, who secured 40th rank in the 2022 UPSC examination and holds a B.Tech from BITS, Pilani, should have been well versed in the law. The decision to conduct proceedings from his car arose as a result of an argument with a lawyer. The lawyer filed the application for the warrant around 11 a.m., but the attached report was several months old. SDM has decided to publish a new date for submitting the updated report.

This decision angered the lawyer, which led to a heated argument. It is reported that the lawyer threatened SDM, promising to disrupt the court proceedings. Other lawyers joined him in blocking the main gate of the court, thereby preventing the parties from entering or leaving the premises.

Faced with such an obstruction, the SDM decided to hold court from his official SUV. “I decided to conduct the court session from my official SUV and announcements were made through the loudspeaker installed in the vehicle to summon the parties,” he stated.

For more than an hour, a stunned crowd watched the spectacle of an orderly calling out court cases over a loudspeaker as statements were recorded near the car. Eventually the senior lawyers approached the SDM and asked him to return to the courtroom. After that, the trial resumed.

The event indicates a serious violation of law and order. The provisions of the repealed Indian Penal Code and its revised version clearly define what constitutes a threat. The lawyer’s actions, including blocking access to the court, are obstruction of justice — criminal contempt of court.

Although the SDM has no 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 be forced to act by arresting and charging the lawyers. The SDM’s failure to act decisively may reflect either ignorance or a desire to avoid escalating an already volatile situation.

Cases of lawyers intimidating judges are not new. The Delhi Bar, including those practicing in the Tis Hazari Courts, has developed a reputation for aggressive behaviour. However, as employees of the court, lawyers are obliged to protect its dignity, and not to hinder its functioning.

The behavior of the lawyers mirrors the behavior of some MPs who engage in physical fights outside the parliament. For example, an FIR was filed against Rahul Gandhi after such an incident. In another case, Karnataka High Court lawyers physically prevented Justice Bangalore Nagaratne from leaving the courtroom in 2009. Justice Nagaratna, now set to become India’s first female Chief Justice of India, was no stranger to intimidation tactics.

Another disturbing trend is the intimidation of minorities such as Christians from celebrating festivals such as Christmas. During the homeless incidents in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the Sangh Parivar and other members of the saffron brigade threatened Christians and convent schools. Opposition to Valentine’s Day is well documented, but attempts to prevent Christmas from being celebrated are equally reprehensible.

Ironically, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) has invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the chief guest for its Christmas celebrations on December 23. This gesture emphasizes the willingness of the community to participate despite the pressure of the majority.

The right to violence appears to supersede the right to life guaranteed by Article 21, which states that no one shall be deprived of life or liberty except by judicial process. However, when the deputies themselves are accused of using violence, as the opposition claims, it sets a dangerous precedent. The Sangh Parivar’s monopoly on violence coupled with its majoritarian agenda seems to have permeated all levels of governance.

Sociologist Max Weber defined the state as a “human community” that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. This concept is used by those who seek to impose a separate vision of religion, culture and nation. Without the use of force, the Sangh Parivar cannot realize its vision of “one religion, one people, one language, one culture, one nation”.

In a country that strives to uphold democratic ideals, such cases blur the line between mobocracy and democracy. When majoritarianism masquerades as utilitarianism, minorities, including judicial officers, remain vulnerable. As the CBCI seeks to co-exist with majoritarianism, the question remains: Will mobocracy continue to masquerade as democracy?

Olav Albuquerque has a Ph.D. in Law and is a Senior Journalist Advocate in the Bombay High Court.