Back
's Intervention in Jantar Mantar Protests Raises Questions on
Recent protests by young Indians at Jantar Mantar, followed by a police crackdown that drew sharp criticism, have prompted the to step in and examine the facts. But beyond the immediate incident, a deeper question has emerged: are India's truly serving as the "" that the framers envisioned, or has executive power eroded the judiciary's ability to protect citizens' ? The events have reignited a national debate on the , the sanctity of , and the in the world's largest democracy.
The Protest and the Crackdown
The Jantar Mantar protests, organized by young Indians demanding accountability on various issues, were met with what many described as an "uncalled for and unjust" police response. , arrests without trial, and the banning of peaceful assemblies echoed fears voiced decades ago by the framers of . The Supreme Court's intervention—ostensibly to uncover the truth—has been welcomed, but it also highlights a troubling pattern: citizens increasingly need the highest court to intervene in matters that should be safeguarded at the ground level by all authorities.
Voices from the : A Reminder of Constitutional Intent
To understand the gravity of the situation, one must revisit the debates of the , which spent over 114 days drafting between . The framers were acutely aware of the dangers of . Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect, emphasized that must be binding upon every authority, not just a moral guide. He stated,
"The object of
is two-fold. First, that every citizen must be in a position to claim those rights. Secondly, they must be binding upon every authority."
Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man presciently warned of a scenario where
"if a meeting is held, then for breaking it up lathis may be used, and people may be put to jail without trial, their organisations may be banned and declared illegal."
His words seem almost prophetic in the context of Jantar Mantar.
Pandit Bhargava, another framer, declared that in a democracy, courts are the ultimate refuge of citizens. He said,
"I want the judiciary to be exalted to its right position of
and people to be secure in their rights and liberties under its protecting wings."
Similarly, K.M. Munshi cautioned that emergency thinking could destroy :
"Our emergency at the moment has perhaps led us to forget that if we do not give the scope to individual liberty, and give it the protection of the courts, we will create a tradition which will ultimately destroy even whatever little
which exists in this country."
These quotations underscore that the framers did not intend to be paper promises. They wanted an independent judiciary that could stand up to the executive, even if that meant challenging powerful governments.
The Role of the Judiciary: Independence Under Strain?
The
was a central concern during the framing of
. Dr. Ambedkar acknowledged that even the Chief Justice is a human with
"all failings, all the sentiments and all the prejudices which we as common people have."
He insisted that the judiciary must be both independent of the executive and competent. Jawaharlal Nehru desired judges who could
"stand up against the executive government, and whoever may come in their way."
Yet today, many observers worry that fear of transfers, post-retirement assignments, and other pressures may be influencing judicial behaviour. The source notes that
"fear of transfers and other punishments that many outstanding Judges have endured in last decade"
may be silencing voices that should be speaking up for citizens. K.T. Shah's warning is particularly relevant: he argued that judges should be barred from transitioning to executive offices, lest they
"model their judgements, unconsciously perhaps, in the hope of proper appreciation being shown at suitable moments by the powers that be."
The result, according to the source, is that
are violated on a large scale
"under the watchful eyes of
and the
."
Fake encounters, bulldozing of homes, attacks on minorities, and brutal treatment of accused persons continue unabated. The national conscience, it is argued, is dead against these violations, yet the courts often remain passive.
Legal Analysis: The Duty of Courts in Protecting
The legal framework is clear. of guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or except according to . guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. These rights are not absolute but can be restricted only by . The police action at Jantar Mantar, if it involved and , may well violate these .
The Supreme Court's intervention in such matters is not just a discretionary act; it is a constitutional duty. In cases, hearings, and challenges to police brutality, judges must lean in favour of the citizen and against the all-powerful state. As Nazir Uddin Ahmad observed,
"The worst thing that he can do is to refuse real justice to the people. If there is one thing which will thrill the hearts of people and will make our independence a solid achievement it is the confidence in the judiciary."
But confidence is fragile. When courts appear reluctant to act—whether due to institutional pressure, backlog, or other reasons—the
suffers. The source laments that
"we are fast becoming a lawless country.
is under strain, if not failing."
This is a serious indictment that demands introspection at all levels of the judiciary.
Impact on Legal Practice and Public Trust
For legal professionals, the Jantar Mantar incident is a reminder of the practical challenges in enforcing . Lawyers handling applications, , or must be prepared to argue not just the facts but also the constitutional vision. The framers' debates provide powerful ammunition: they show that the intent was to create a judiciary that is a "shield" for citizens, not a passive observer.
Moreover, the incident underscores the need for judicial officers at all levels—from magistrates to High Court judges—to internalize the
. As Pandit Bhargava insisted, courts are the
"ultimate refuge of the citizens."
If that refuge is compromised, the entire democratic edifice weakens.
Conclusion: A Call for Judicial Awakening
The Jantar Mantar protests and the Supreme Court's intervention are not an isolated event. They are symptomatic of a broader tension between executive power and individual liberty. The framers of gave India a robust framework, but they also warned that without an independent and courageous judiciary, those rights would be meaningless.
The question posed by the source is urgent:
"Why do most of them not speak up for the People?"
Whether due to fear, institutional culture, or systemic pressures, the judiciary must rediscover its role as the guardian of
. As Kamath exclaimed during the
debates,
"If the judiciary is not there to protect and safeguard these rights that you may confer on the citizen, how are we going to preserve the sanctity of our Constitution?"
The answer lies in every courtroom, every order, and every judgment. Judges must uphold the rights of citizens zealously, without fear or favour. Only then can India fulfill the promise of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity that the framers so carefully crafted.
