Demanding Justice cannot be Contempt of Court
When a Member of Parliament states openly that ‘We are here to change the Constitution,’ the Judiciary pretends to be deaf. When a politician says that ‘the country should become a Hindu state’, the Supreme Court does not consider it as a challenge to the Constitution or the Judiciary itself. The Judiciary has never recognized as contempt of court several statements challenging democracy and Constitution on Facebook and Twitter. But the moment a senior lawyer and thinker out of concern issues a statement on Twitter about the state of the Constitution and the Judiciary, immediately the court registers a suo motu case and initiates action against him. The country has witnessed allegations that “Leaders in office are progressively killing the Constitution and are purchasing the Judiciary”. But, in the ‘Contempt of Court’ case against Prashanth Bhushan, we should perhaps be anxious whether the Judiciary is on a suicidal path.
Prashanth Bhushan’s tweet is as follows: “When historians in the future record how democracy was destroyed in the past six years without officially declaring a state of emergency, they will recognize the role of the Supreme Court and specifically, the role of four Supreme Court Judges.” In this tweet, more than committing an act of Contempt of Court, he expressed his anguish over the weakness of the Judiciary. When the Judiciary, which is expected to play the most significant role in protecting democracy, loses its sense of purpose and direction and when the Government tries to control it, Constitutional experts and thinkers have come out and supported the Judiciary by taking on the Government. This is not a recent development and has been the case right from the days of Indira Gandhi to the present days of Narendra Modi. When Indira Gandhi imposed emergency, the Judiciary supported the people. It was even responsible for sending Indira Gandhi to jail. When the government misused its power, people approached the Judiciary as a last resort. It is therefore important that even if the government becomes directionless, the Judiciary should not lose its way. Whenever the Judiciary has failed to discharge its responsibilities, it has dealt a blow to the Constitution. If a democratically elected leader adopts a dictatorial stand repeatedly, it means the Judiciary has not been performing its duties adequately. Bhushan has expressed these views in his tweets.
Not only Prashanth Bhushan but several leaders and thinkers have also expressed anguish that the country is facing an undeclared emergency. Compared to an emergency that is declared officially, an undeclared emergency in the guise of democracy is more dangerous. In such a situation, governments start taking decisions citing the Constitution, but the decisions are anti-Constitutional in reality. This is exactly what is happening in the country. If the Judiciary is forthright and is committed to the Constitution, such a situation would not have been created. Allegations that Judges are looking away from the Constitution and are issuing orders to please the rulers are being heard all over the country. Many orders issued by the Judiciary are very confusing and weak and are being discussed extensively in the public domain. The number of Judges with an attitude that the orders of the court must be accepted irrespective of whether they are in accordance with the Constitution and based on evidence are increasing by the day. In such a situation, if the country has been subjected to a state of undeclared emergency, then the Judiciary must take complete responsibility. If Prashanth Bhushan issues a warning, how does it amount to ‘contempt of court’?
Some time ago, a few Judges of the Supreme Court had openly criticized the Chief Justice in a press conference. This revolt in the Supreme Court was discussed extensively in the country. But, it was not considered as ‘contempt of court’ and cases were not filed against them. The person who convened the press conference subsequently became the Chief Justice. But Prashanth Bhushan did not humiliate the Judiciary in this manner. If a senior lawyer does not have the freedom to express anguish over the country’s democracy in a tweet, doesn’t it mean that this country is in a state of ‘undeclared emergency,’ as Bhushan stated? A Judge who gives himself a clean chit over allegations of sexual harassment, a Judiciary that hesitates to speak up against the government when people’s fundamental rights in Kashmir are completely repressed, a Judiciary that hesitates to clearly speak up about the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, and a Judiciary that makes sure that it scuttles investigation into the Rafale deal. These are some examples that show that the Judiciary is not in favor of the people but is out to please the government. Bhushan has been repeatedly speaking against these developments. People are now left to wonder if he has incurred the wrath of the Judiciary merely because he has been a critic of the present government and an effective human rights activist. Such public skepticism does not augur well for the health of a democracy. If Bhushan is punished, then the concept of freedom of expression itself would appear farcical. The day is not too far off when the entire country will turn into a prison if every act of criticizing the government is considered seditious and if every demand for justice is treated as contempt of court.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
GST Council clarifies on popcorn taxation
Jaisalmer, Dec 21: The GST Council on Saturday agreed to issue a clarification on the taxation of popcorn, stating that pre-packed and labelled ready-to-eat snacks will attract a 12% tax, while an 18% GST will be levied if the popcorn is caramelised.
There is no change in the tax rate for popcorn, and the GST Council has decided that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) will issue a circular clarifying the current taxation regime for popcorn.
"Ready-to-eat popcorn," which is mixed with salt and spices and has the essential character of namkeens, currently attracts a 5% GST if it is not pre-packaged and labelled.
If it is supplied as pre-packaged and labelled, a 12% GST is levied.
However, when popcorn is mixed with sugar (caramel popcorn), its essential character changes to that of a sugar confectionery, and it would therefore be classified under HS 1704 90 90, attracting an 18% GST, as per the clarification.
