Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said on Friday that “In India, political parties wrongly believe judiciary should endorse their actions, advance their political cause.”
Unfortunately this is so when it comes to common man. We expect the judiciary to reflect our school of thought. It’s ok to expect it on sound principles of law. However, what is disturbing is such expectation comes even when a politically/religiously charged matter is decided by the Courts on merits.
Take the example of the ongoing venom spewing in print and electronic media and on social network against Justice Suryakant and Justice JB Pardiwala. When the very same judges ‘postponed’ disqualification proceedings in Maharashtra and almost simultaneously allowed floor test which resulted in the formation of BJP’s backseat driven Govt, millions of people hailed them as saviours of democracy.
Now, when they express anguish over unsavoury comments, the same group of people go berserk even questioning the Judges’ political alliance.
This is simply not done. Rule of law will take its course. Judges work under extreme pressure and often want to ‘balance’ their approach in sensitive matters especially when their earlier judgments are perceived as tilted in a particular angle.
What is shocking is: even the members of the legal fraternity have joined the bandwagon in this venom spewing mission. The institution of judiciary and advocacy are two wheels of the same chariot. One cannot survive without the other. This is not to suggest that whatever the courts of law say or utter has to be accepted with folded hands. The attack on the institution by the people charged with political and religious feelings has to be mellowed down by the advocates instead of encouraging it.
This country is passing through one of the most difficult times. The. Judiciary is trying its best to decide the matters on the constitutional touchstone and to bring harmony among the religious and political groups. It is the duty of the learned Advocates to join the judicial institution in the endeavour.
Remember, all disputes, all claims and all religious and politically charged cases can be sorted out within the constitutional framework. Media and social network is not the forum to condemn the judicial institution.
Thanks to the digitalisation of Court proceedings. We had the benefit of hearing the arguments of some of the greatest lawyers of our time in the Hijab case.
The brightest arguments were from the youngest lawyers. Mr. Devadatt Kamat made powerful yet impassionate submissions throughout the proceedings. His knowledge of law and professionalism stole the show. Professor Ravivarma Kumar was, as always, at his best. Mr. Sanjay Hegde reiterated the arguments of Mr. Kamat with little poetic tinge.
The onslaught from the respondent’s side came from the Advocate General with able assistance of his team. The Arguments of the Advocate General were outstanding. Mr. Sajan Poovayya’s arguments, to say the least, coup de grâce.
The contribution of other learned lawyers was noteworthy.
The Hon’ble Judges heard eight eminent lawyers for 27 hours. Went through 210 judgements cited at the Bar and 600 pages of written arguments filed by the learned advocates. Each day, they would carry seven bags full of files for reading.
Considering the sensational issue involved, this is the second historic judgement after Ram Janmabhumi judgement delivered by the Supreme Court.
“ಉಡುಪಿಯ ಪ್ರೀ-ಯೂನಿವರ್ಸಿಟಿ ಕಾಲೇಜಿನ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ ಸಲ್ಲಿಕೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಿಸಲಾದ ವಿಷಯಗಳಿಂದ, 2004 ರಿಂದ ಡ್ರೆಸ್ ಕೋಡ್ನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ನಾವು ಗಮನಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ. (ಉಡುಪಿ ಎಂಟು ಮಠಗಳು ನೆಲೆಗೊಂಡಿರುವ ಸ್ಥಳವಾಗಿದೆ) ಆಚರಿಸುವ ಹಬ್ಬಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರು ಸಹ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಾವು ಪ್ರಭಾವಿತರಾಗಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ಶೈಕ್ಷಣಿಕ ಅವಧಿಯ ಮಧ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅದು ಹೇಗೆ ಇದ್ದಕ್ಕಿದ್ದಂತೆ ಹಿಜಾಬ್ನ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಧಿಕಾರದಿಂದ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದಿಂದ ಹೊರಹಾಕಲ್ಪಟ್ಟಿದೆ ಎಂದು ನಾವು ದಿಗ್ಭ್ರಮೆಗೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ಹಿಜಾಬ್ ವಿವಾದ ತೆರೆದಿರುವ ವಿಧಾನವು ಕೆಲವು ‘ಕಾಣದ ಕೈಗಳು’ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಅಶಾಂತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅಸಂಗತತೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂಬ ವಾದಕ್ಕೆ ಅವಕಾಶವನ್ನು ನೀಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನದನ್ನು ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸುವ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ತನಿಖೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಬೀರಬಾರದು ಎಂಬ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ನಾವು ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಮುಚ್ಚಿದ ಕವರ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಮಗೆ ಒದಗಿಸಲಾದ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಪೇಪರ್ಗಳ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಾವು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಮತ್ತು ಹಿಂತಿರುಗಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ಈ ವಿಷಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತ್ವರಿತ ಮತ್ತು ಪರಿಣಾಮಕಾರಿ ತನಿಖೆಯನ್ನು ಯಾವುದೇ ವಿಳಂಬವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಅಪರಾಧಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ರಮಕ್ಕೆ ತರಲಾಗುವುದನ್ನು ನಾವು ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಿಸುತ್ತೇವೆ. “
ರೇಶಮ್ ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ನೊಬ್ಬ vs ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ ಆಫ್ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರರು.
2022 ರ ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿ 2347 ಅನ್ನು 15 ಮಾರ್ಚ್ 2022 ರಂದು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ
ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ರಿತು ರಾಜ್ ಅವಸ್ತಿ, ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಕೃಷ್ಣ ದೀಕ್ಷಿತ್ ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಜೆ.ಎಂ.ಖಾಜಿ
ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ ಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ಒ0ದು ಪ್ರಭಲವಾದ ಜ್ಯಾತ್ಯಾತೀತ ಕಾನೂನು ವೇದಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಅನ್ನುವ ಆಸೆಯಿ0ದ ಶ್ರಿ. ದೇವೇಗೌಡರನ್ನು ಬೇಟಿಯಾಗಬೇಕು ಅ0ತ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತ ಎಮ್.ಎಲ್.ಸಿ ಶ್ರೀ. ಬೋಜೇಗೌಡರಿಗೆ ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೆ. ಶ್ರಿ. ದೇವೇಗೌಡರು ಕಳೆದ ವಾರ ಸ0ಜೆ 5:30ಕ್ಕೆ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬರಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು. ತಮ್ಮ ಪಕ್ಷದ ಕಚೇರಿಯಿ0ದ ಮನೆಗೆ ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ 5:20ಕ್ಕೆ ಬ0ದು ನನಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಕೊಠಡಿಗೆ ಬರಲು ಕೋರಿದರು. ಗೌಡರು “ಕುಮಾರಣ್ಣ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬಹಳ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ“ ಅ0ದಾಗ ನನಗೆ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯ. ನನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಆಗಲೇ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊ0ಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎ0ದು.
ಮು0ದಿನ 45 ನಿಮಿಷದವರೆಗೆ ಯಾವುದೋ ಹಳೆಯ ಪರಿಚಯದವರ0ತೆ ಬಹಳೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರು. ನನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದರು. ಕೆಲ ತಿ0ಗಳ ಹಿ0ದೆ ಗೌಡರು ನನ್ನ ಹಳ್ಳಿಗೆ ಬೇಟಿ ನೀಡಿ ನನ್ನ ಚಿಕ್ಕಪ್ಪ ಹಾಗೂ ಜೆ.ಡಿ.ಎಸ್ ಮುಖ0ಡ ಶ್ರಿ. ರೇಣುಕಾರ್ಯರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದನ್ನು ನೆನಪಿಸಿದೆ.
ಶ್ರಿ. ದೇವೇಗೌಡರ ಅತ್ಯ0ತ ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟ ಗುಣವನ್ನು ಅ0ದು ಗಮನಿಸಿದೆ. ವಿದ್ಯಾವ0ತರಿಗೆ, ತಿಳಿದುಕೊ0ಡವರಿಗೆ ಅವರು ಕೊಡುವ ಮರ್ಯಾದೆ. ನಾನು ಅವರ ಜೊತೆ ಇದ್ದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರು ತೋರಿದ ಗೌರವಪೂರ್ವ ಭಾವನೆ ಶ್ಲಾಘನೀಯ.
ನಾನು ಹೊರಟಾಗ ನಾನು ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಕುಳಿತೇ ಇರಿ ಎ0ದರು ಕೋರಿದರೂ ಎದ್ದು ನಿ0ತು ವಿದಾಯ ಹೇಳಿದರು.
ಈಗಿನ ಪರಿಸ್ತಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳೂ ತೀವ್ರವಾದವನ್ನು ಮ0ಡಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಒ0ದು ಪ್ರಭಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಜಾತ್ಯಾತೀತ ಕಾನೂನು ವೇದಿಕೆ ಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ. ಅತ್ಯ0ತ ಗ0ಬೀರವಾದ ವಿಷಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸ0ವಿದಾನದ ಹಿನ್ನೆಲೆಯಿ0ದ ಇ0ದು ಯಾವ ಪಕ್ಷದ ಕಾನೂನು ವೇದಿಕೆಗಳೂ ಮಾತನಾಡುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದ್ದರಿ0ದ ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ ಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ಒ0ದು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಕಾನೂನು ವೇದಿಕೆ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸುವುದು.
ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಕೈಗೂಡುತ್ತದೆಯೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಮಾಜಿ ಪ್ರದಾನಿ ಶ್ರಿ. ದೇವೇಗೌಡರು ಒಬ್ಬ ಸಾದಾರಣ ವಕೀಲನಿಗೆ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಗೌರವದಿ0ದ ನಡೆಸಿಕೊ0ಡಿದ್ದು ಮರೆಯಲಾರದ ಅನುಭವ.
ಎಸ್. ಬಸವರಾಜ್, ಹಿರಿಯ ವಕೀಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ ಕಾನೂನು ಅಕೇಡೆಮಿ.
NKGSB Cooperative Bank Limited vs Subir Chakravarty and others. Civil Appeal ../2022 in S.L.P. 30240 of 2019 decided on 25 February 2022 Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
39. It is well established that an advocate is a guardian of constitutional morality and justice equally with the Judge. He has an important duty as that of a Judge. He bears responsibility towards the society and is expected to act with utmost sincerity and commitment to the cause of justice. He has a duty to the court first. As an officer of the court, he owes allegiance to a higher cause and cannot indulge in consciously misstating the facts or for that matter conceal any material fact within his knowledge. In the case of harma & Ors. vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana AIR 1957 SC 250 the Court noted that in all professional functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct should conform to the requirements of the law by which he plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. As an officer of the court, he is under a higher obligation to uphold the rule of law and justice system.
In a recent order pronounced by Justice H.P. Sandesh of the High Court of Karnataka, the learned Judge has recommended that the Additional Sessions Judge who has granted bail / anticipatory bail in the case should be sent to the Karnataka State Judicial Academy for training. This is a serious adverse comment or rebuke of the Judge concerned.
This direction has the effect of demoralising the Sessions Judges of the State who are dealing with applications under Section 438 and 439 of the Cr.P.C. and prompting them to dismiss most of the applications so that they will not suffer adverse comments from the High Court. Already there is a view (as recently expressed by the High Court of Calcutta) that the judges of the District Judiciary are stingy in the matter of grant of bail. It is not surprising that statistics show that 69% of inmates of the jails in India are under trials. Now with this above order, the position is worse for applicants for bail or anticipatory bail before session judges /Magistrate and in border line cases, applications are sure to be dismissed.
Judges are after all human beings and have therefore their own views, prejudices and opinions. Admittedly grant or refusal of bail is discretionary, of course to be exercised judicially. On same set of facts two Judges may render conflicting decisions, more so in the case of discretionary matters. It is a well known fact that there are judges who are considered pro conviction or pro acquittal, pro labour or pro management, pro landlord or pro tenant , pro establishment or pro citizen , conservative or progressive thinking and so on. The Judges dealing with bail applications are no exception. Some are liberal in the matter of grant of bail, some are very strict. In the recent case of Arnab Goswami, while the District Judiciary and High Court declined to grant bail, the Supreme Court quickly took a contrary view and granted bail, which some commented, was a hasty decision. In such matters personal view point and opinion of the judges do play an important role and one cannot expect all judges to act similarly, as computers do.
The learned judge has stated that the Sessions Judge should go to the Judicial Academy for training in “Applying Judicial thought process” and “endeavour to learn judicial discretion”. I do not think, exercise of Judicial discretion could be a subject of training. There are hundreds of cases, where Supreme Court has reversed the discretionary orders of the High Courts holding that the judicial discretion has been exercised capriciously and the decision is perverse. High Courts reverse several discretionary orders of grant or refusal of temporary injunctions in pending suits, which could be done only if the order under appeal is perverse, capricious or arbitrary.
Therefore the Court reversing a discretionary order directing the judge whose order is reversed to undergo training in Judicial academy may not be a good precedent. Such a direction may encourage Sessions Judges/Magistrate to reject bail applications even in deserving cases to be on the safer side.
In the case on hand, the High Court may or may not be right in reversing the order, as we do not know the full facts. However the Sessions Judge cannot be faulted, for observing that the case is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Section 437 Cr.P.C. itself has placed such cases in a different category.
The High Court Judgment at one place records that charge sheet has been filed in the case. It is also a relevant consideration. However in another part of this judgment, the High Court finds fault with the Sessions Judge for granting bail even before investigation is completed. The charge includes Section 498A IPC and demand of dowry. Misuse of these provisions have been the subject matter of adverse comments in many judgments of the Supreme Court and lower courts have been directed to exercise caution in such cases. In a decision rendered few days back a bench of Supreme Court (Comprising of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari ) while quashing a FIR against the in laws of the woman who had accused them and her husband of cruelty and harassment for dowry noticed “ increased tendency to employ provisions like section 498A IPC ….. as instruments to settle personal scores against husband and his relatives.” After refereeing to some earlier cases they said “ Decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances express concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husbands in matrimonial disputes……….False implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore this court by way of its Judgements has warned the courts from proceeding against relatives and in laws of the husband (woman), when no prima facie case is made out against them”
As seen from the judgment of the High Court, main evidence relied on is a voice message said to have been sent by the victim before her death stating that if anything happens to her, the named accused (her husband and parents) will be responsible for the same. Such declarations are found in many death notes in cases of suicide and the Supreme Court and the High Courts have directed caution in relying on such declarations which have become common. In many cases, employees committing suicide have named many executives of the companies as responsible for suicide and such declarations have been found to be not true. In the present case, strangely the voice message said to have been sent is not to the parents or relatives but to their neighbors.The message is not of any past act of cruelty or harassment for dowry.
At best, it can be said that prosecution has made out a prima facie case. It is settled law that mere making out prima facie case is not sufficient to deny bail, particularly in cases where punishment is not death or imprisonment for life .In the case of Bhagiratsinh Judeja Vs State of Gujarath (AIR 1984 S.C.372 ) the Supreme Court has observed “ We fail to understand what the learned Judge of the High Court desires to convey when he says that once a prima facie case is established, it is necessary for the court to examine the nature and gravity of circumstances in which the offence was committed. If there is prima facie case,there is no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established , the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by a way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence”.
In the Case on hand, it is not even alleged or found by the High Court that accused is likely to abscond or evidence may be tampered with as important witnesses are complainant and his relatives. It is unnecessary to go into details, as my only purpose is to point out that on facts opinions always differ.
One can appreciate the sympathy and the concern shown by the learned Judge of the High Court towards the victim . However that should not result in detention of the accused at pretrial stage as a measure of punishment.
It appears, the main reasons which prompted the learned High Court Judge to deny the bail, is that dowry death case is a heinous offence and hence the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail is capricious and perverse and therefore unsustainable. It cannot be laid down as proposition of law, that in heinous offenses (including dowry death or murder) bail cannot be granted. It is hoped that soon in appropriate cases, the High Court it self will clarify this position, as other wise the present decision may act as a dangerous precedent. So far as the recommendation regarding training in Judicial Academy is concerned, I hope the Hon’ble Chief Justice will pass suitable order taking all aspects into consideration.
Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Senior Advocate who appeared for the President and Vice President of collage development and management committee today, completely annihilated the arguments of the petitioners. His fundamental submission was that his school is committed to impart Secular education and it cannot allow the students to wear whatever they want depending on their religion. If allowed, the same would destroy the cohabitation expected in educational institution. Mr. Sajan Poovayya arguments are here;
Mr. Poovayya quoted from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SR Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 which shed considerable light on the understanding of “secularism” in the constitutional sense.
It is also apposite to refer to Article 39(f) – “that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity …” placed in Part IV – Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution of India. The intersection of Directive Principles of State Policy and nation building has been referred to time and time again, including in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.
Article 39(f) was introduced by the Forty-Second Amendment, i.e., the very amendment which expressly introduced the word “Secular” into the Preamble.
In imparting secular education, the ideals that the State should seek to instil amongst children, are informed by inter alia the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Core constitutional principles which have been held to be not only a part of part III but also a part of the basic structure such as ‘secularism’; b. Children should turn out to be students not just capable of but also inclined to perform fundamental duties (Article 51A) such as: i. Uphold the unity and integrity of India (Article 51A(c)); ii. To promote spirit of harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women (Article 51A(e)); iii. To develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform (Article 51A(h)); iv. To strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity do that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement (Article 51A(j)). c. Likewise, the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 enlists inter alia the endeavour to cultivate a scientific and secular outlook through education.
Whilst homes and society provide religious and cultural upbringing, the constitutional endeavour of school is to promote common brotherhood by transcending inter alia religious diversities. This objective will fail if religious attire is permitted in schools imparting secular education.
Many disturbing posts and messages are circulated by a group called “Mangalore Muslims” making false, motivated and highly derogatory comments on Justice Krishna Dixit. See below;
The comments insinuate Justice Krishna Dixit participating in a function having RSS links. These comments are made by few fanatics without even knowing what is “Rashtra Katha Shibir”. I personally verified from the organisers and their website and the reality is far from what is projected by the fanatics.
“Rashtra Katha Shibir” has nothing to do with RSS. The founder of Shri Vedic Mission Trust Swami Dharmbandhu organizes Rashtrakatha Shivir every year in the month of December at Pransla in the district of Rajkot, Gujarat. Since 2002, he has facilitated this platform whereby the youth and specially the students from different corners of the country assemble. Shri Vedic Mission Trust has been organizing ten days youth camp at Pransala for the past 21 years under the Rashtra Katha Shivir series. This year 22 Rashtra Katha Shivir has organised by Swami Dharambandhu at Pransala was held from 28 Dec 2019 to 05 Jan 2020. More than 12000 students from 27 States and Union Territories participated in this Shibir. Besides, enlightening students on the pristine cultural values, Swami also conducts regular shivbirs for teachers training across the nation. There will be intensive training program in different departments from Morning 5am to 10pm. Shri Vedic Mission Trust has been organizing ten days youth camp at Pransala for the past 21 years under the Rashtra Katha Shivir series.
Former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, Governor of Tamilnadu B. L Purohit, Meghalaya Governor Tathagata Roy will be Chief Guest of 22 Rashtra Katha Shibir. The camp aims to provide a platform for orientation and nurturing of youth in various disciplines such as National Integration, Social Harmony and Religious harmony and Martial Arts, to mention a few.
Justice M.N.Venkatachalaiah, Justice Santosh Hegde, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Mr. Shashi Tharoor and several such greats too have graced function. Justice Krishna Dixit attended one such function to give speech. See the video links below.
Those who are slinging mud at the judiciary are those who are willing to send their own women folk to the dark ages. The oblique agenda is to somehow get Justice Krishna Dixit recused from the case. Judiciary has witnessed such dirty tactics in the past. Over the decades such attempts have only made our judiciary one of the strongest institution in the world.
ಎರಡು ದಿನ ನಿರ0ತರ ವಾದದಲ್ಲಿ ಅತ್ಯ0ತ ಚಾಕಚಕ್ಯತೆ, ಕಾನೂ ಪರಿಣತಿ ಹಾಗೂ ವಕೀಲವೃತ್ತಿಯ ಮೇರು ಗುಣಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಅಡ್ವೋಕೇಟ್ ಜನರಲ್ ಶ್ರೀ. ಪ್ರಭುಲಿ0ಗ ನಾವದಗಿ ಇದುವರೆಗೂ ಹಿಜಾಬ್ ಪರ ಮ0ಡಿಸಿದ್ದ ವಾದಗಳನ್ನು ಬುಡಮೇಲು ಮಾಡಿದರು.
ಯಾವ ಆಚರಣೆ ಮಾಡದಿದ್ದರೆ ಒ0ದು ಧರ್ಮವೇ ಅವನತಿ ಹೊ0ದುತ್ತದೆಯೊ ಅ0ತಹ ಆಚರಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ “ಅಗತ್ಯ ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಆಚರಣೆ“ ಎ0ದು ಕರೆಯಬಹುದು ಎ0ದು ತಮ್ಮ ವಾದವನ್ನು ಅತ್ಯ0ತ ಮಾರ್ಮಿಕವಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಭುಲಿ0ಗ ನಾವದಗಿ ಮ0ಡಿಸಿದರು.
ಹಿಜಾಬ್ ಹಾಕಲಿಕ್ಕೆ ಈ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ಅಡಚಣೆಯೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಸ0ಸ್ದೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಮವಸ್ತ್ರ ಧರಿಸುವುದು ಈ ದೇಶದ ಸ0ವಿದಾನದ ಮೌಲ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಎತ್ತಿಹಿಡಿದ0ತೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿ0ದ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಸ0ಸ್ದೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಜಾಬ್ ಗೆ ಅವಕಾಶ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎ0ದು ನಾವದಗಿ ವಾದಿಸಿದರು. ಅವರ ವಾದಗಳು ಈ ರೀತಿ ಇವೆ.
ಹಿಜಾಬ್ ಖಡ್ಡಾಯವಾಗಿ ಧರಿಸುವುದು ಅಗತ್ಯ ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಆಚರಣೆ ಎ0ಬುವುದನ್ನುಒಪ್ಪುವುದಾದರೆ ಹಿಜಾಬ್ ದರಿಸಲು ಮನಸ್ಸಿಲ್ಲದ ಹೆಣ್ಣುಮಕ್ಕಳ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಗೆ ಒಡೆತ ಕೊಟ್ಟ0ತೆ. ಸ0ವಿದಾನದಲ್ಲಿ 19(1)(ಅ) ಪರಿಚ್ಛೇದ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಹಿಜಾಬ್ ಧರಿಸುವುದನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಬಹುದಾದರೂ, ಕೆಲವೊ0ದು ಸ್ಥಳಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ದಿರಿಸನ್ನು ನಿಷೇದಿಸುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಸ0ವಿದಾನದ 19(1)(2) ಪರಿಚ್ಛೇದ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಹೊ0ದಿದೆ.
ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಪರಿಚ್ಛೇದ 25 ಮತ್ತು 26 ರ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಖಾತರಿಪಡಿಸಲಾದ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಯು ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತ ಅಥವಾ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯ ವಿಷಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ ಧರ್ಮದ ಅನುಸಾರವಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳಿಗೆ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಆಚರಣೆಗಳು, ಸಮಾರಂಭಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಪೂಜಾ ವಿಧಾನಗಳಿಗೆ ಖಾತರಿ ನೀಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಧರ್ಮದ ಅವಿಭಾಜ್ಯ ಅಂಗ. ಧರ್ಮದ ಅವಿಭಾಜ್ಯ ಅಥವಾ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಭಾಗ ಯಾವುದು ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಅದರ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳು, ಆಚರಣೆಗಳು, ತತ್ವಗಳು, ನೀಡಿದ ಧರ್ಮದ ಐತಿಹಾಸಿಕ ಹಿನ್ನೆಲೆ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿ ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಬೇಕು. “ಧರ್ಮದ ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯ ಭಾಗ ಅಥವಾ ಆಚರಣೆಗಳು” ಎಂಬುದರ ಅರ್ಥವು ಈಗ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟೀಕರಣದ ವಿಷಯವಾಗಿದೆ. ಧರ್ಮದ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಭಾಗವೆಂದರೆ ಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಿದ ಪ್ರಮುಖ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳು. ಅಗತ್ಯ ಆಚರಣೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಅನುಸರಿಸಲು ಮೂಲಭೂತವಾದ ಆಚರಣೆಗಳು. ಅಗತ್ಯ ಭಾಗಗಳು ಅಥವಾ ಆಚರಣೆಗಳ ಮೂಲಾಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಧರ್ಮದ ಮೇಲ್ವಿಚಾರವನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ, ಅದು ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಧರ್ಮವು ಯಾವುದೇ ಧರ್ಮವಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಒಂದು ಧರ್ಮಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಭಾಗ ಅಥವಾ ಆಚರಣೆ ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯವೇ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಲು ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯು ಆ ಭಾಗ ಅಥವಾ ಆಚರಣೆಯಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಧರ್ಮದ ಸ್ವರೂಪವು ಬದಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆಯೇ ಎಂದು ಕಂಡುಹಿಡಿಯುವುದು. ಆ ಭಾಗ ಅಥವಾ ಆಚರಣೆಯನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕುವುದರಿಂದ ಆ ಧರ್ಮದ ಗುಣಲಕ್ಷಣ ಅಥವಾ ಅದರ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗೆ ಕಾರಣವಾದರೆ, ಅಂತಹ ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯ ಅಥವಾ ಅವಿಭಾಜ್ಯ ಅಂಗವೆಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬಹುದು.
ಧರ್ಮದ ಅರ್ಥ – ಆರ್ಟಿಕಲ್ 25 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಲಾದ ಪದ ಮತ್ತು ಆರ್ಟಿಕಲ್ 25 ರ ಮೂಲಕ ನೀಡಲಾದ ರಕ್ಷಣೆಯ ಸ್ವರೂಪವು ಎಂ. ಇಸ್ಮಾಯಿಲ್ ಫಾರುಕಿ (ಡಾ) ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಯೂನಿಯನ್ ಆಫ್ ಇಂಡಿಯಾ ಯಲ್ಲಿನ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ ಪೀಠದ ನಿರ್ಧಾರದ ಘೋಷಣೆಯಿಂದ ಇತ್ಯರ್ಥಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ. ಆರ್ಟಿಕಲ್ 25 ಕೇವಲ ಧರ್ಮದ ಅವಿಭಾಜ್ಯ ಅಂಗಗಳಾದ ಆಚರಣೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಆಚರಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಆಚರಿಸುವ ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ್ಯವನ್ನು ರಕ್ಷಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಭಾರತದ ಸಂವಿಧಾನದ 25 ನೇ ವಿಧಿಯು ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಅನ್ವಯವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಧರ್ಮಕ್ಕೆ ಅನ್ಯವಾದ, ಅನಗತ್ಯವಾದ ಸಂಚಯವಾಗಿರುವ ಮೂಢ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಧರ್ಮದ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಭಾಗಗಳೆಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು/ಅಥವಾ ನಂಬಿಕೆಗೆ ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯವಾಗಿರುವ ವಿಷಯಗಳು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯಾಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ನಿರ್ಣಯಿಸಲ್ಪಡುತ್ತವೆ, ಅಂತಹ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯ ಅಗತ್ಯತೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸುವ ಸಮುದಾಯವು ಏನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತದೆ. ಒಂದು ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯೆಂದರೆ ಧರ್ಮದಿಂದ ಅಗತ್ಯವಾದ ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಲಾದ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ನಂಬಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕಿದ ಸನ್ನಿವೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಧರ್ಮವು ಉಳಿಯುತ್ತದೆಯೇ? ಸಮಾನವಾಗಿ, ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಸಮುದಾಯದ ವಿವಿಧ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತಪಡಿಸಲಾದ ಅಗತ್ಯತೆಯ ಅಂಶದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಭಿನ್ನ ಧ್ವನಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದರೆ, ಅಂತಹ ವಿಷಯವು ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯವೇ ಅಥವಾ ಅಲ್ಲವೇ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ಧಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಬೆರೆಸಬಹುದು, ಈ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಚಟುವಟಿಕೆಯ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ಪ್ರಬಲ ಸ್ವರೂಪವನ್ನು ಅನ್ವಯಿಸಬೇಕು. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯವು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ-ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆಯ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಕೋನವನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾಯೋಗಿಕ ಅಗತ್ಯತೆಯ ಪರಿಗಣನೆಯಿಂದ ಕಾರ್ಯಗತಗೊಳಿಸಬೇಕು.
ಈ ಹಿನ್ನೆಲಿಯಿ0ದ ನೋಡಿದಾಗ ಹಿಜಾಬ್ ಯಾವ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೂ ಇಸ್ಲಾ0 ಧರ್ಮದ ಧರ್ಮದ ಅವಿಭಾಜ್ಯ ಅಥವಾ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಭಾಗ ಎ0ದು ಹೇಳಲು ಸಾದ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.
Daksha Legal 