First the mob, then the law
“First the mob, then the law” runs the - apposite - headline. “Judges who decry anti-Muslim bias find themselves overruled or transferred.”
The Economist article refers to the riot in Delhi in February 2020 in which 53 people died, bringing the total dead to 80 after Narendra Modi changed the law on citizenship. “And although it is Muslims, both protesters and bystanders, who have borne the brunt of the violence and vandalism, the government, the agencies of the state and much of the press have persisted in blaming the victims.”
However, a judge in Mangaluru, in the southern state of Karnataka, granted bail to 21 Muslim men charged with joining a riot. He condemned the police for fabricating evidence. The police had also failed to file a single case in the riots in December following the discriminatory law, despite eyewitness accounts of how the police themselves had shot dead two people. He concluded that there had been “a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses”.
“Two weeks later, in much more typical fashion, the Supreme Court struck down the ruling, sending the men back to prison.”
In a similar case, out of many, a court in Karnataka rejected a plea for bail by three students accused of sedition for singing “Long Live Pakistan” in a Facebook video. Legal precedent requires that the alleged perpetrators of sedition directly instigate violence against the state, yet the judge found it sufficient that they had “created unhealthy atmosphere”.
(Facebook post authors come in for vicious treatment, as we will see in the case of the engineering student in Bangladesh beaten to death by classmates for his post.)
In the most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, where the police were repeatedly filmed vandalising private property during protests, the state, instead of charging the officers involved, is trying the lawyers and human rights activists for damaging private property. The police even erected giant billboards with the pictures, names and addresses of those from whom it was seeking damages. When the High Court ordered a stop to this public hounding, the state government, run by the BJP, appealed to the Supreme Court. “It is likely to get a sympathetic hearing.”
During the riots in Delhi, it was only subsequent to a High Court order to help evacuate wounded people to hospital that the 80,000-strong police force began to intervene, after 48 hours of arson and murder. With plentiful footage of BJP members calling for protesters to be shot, the same bench also ordered police to register cases against members of the BJP for hate speech, which they had refused to do, despite the evidence.
“Hours later the Supreme Court transferred one of the troublesome judges out of Delhi. The next day the high court postponed all hearings about hate speech to April. (emphases added)”
The worst suspicions were confirmed in March when Ranjan Gogoi took oath as a new member of the Rajya Sabha, India’s upper house. Opposition MPs staged a boycott amid cries of “shame”. Mr. Gogoi had recently retired as Chief Justice. Critics of the BJP claim that his seat is a pay-off for rulings that favoured the government.
BBC: How Muslim homes were targeted and burned