SHOE-STRIKE AT CONSTITUTION

In a Republic of ‘hurt sentiments’ across communities, the ‘normalisation’ of violence is what is reprehensible, not just the shoe-throwing act per se

- Rajdeep Sardesai

Here is an intriguing question: what if the lawyer who threw the shoe at the Chief Justice of India in open court was not named Rakesh Kishore but Rahim Khan instead? Is it likely that he would not be let off scot free but instead would face charges under the NSA, Public Safety Act (if he was a Kashmiri Muslim) or maybe even the UAPA?

The aim here isn’t to gaslight anyone but to turn the searchlight on a hateful and divisive ecosystem where coarse public opinion can influence the criminal justice process.

Let's understand the chronology here. Last month, CJI BR Gavai dismissed a plea to reconstruct a damaged Lord Vishnu idol at a temple in Khajuraho. While deeming it a ‘publicity interest litigation,’ Justice Gavai remarked that instead of filing a petition, the petitioner should “go and ask the deity himself to do something. If you are saying that you are a strong devotee of Lord Vishnu, then you pray and do some meditation.” The judge’s seemingly mocking tone was wholly unnecessary but remember these were only observations: the case was dismissed because the court ruled that this was a matter for the Archaeological Survey of India to adjudicate upon.

Unfortunately, the politically weaponised armies on social media have little time to read reasoned court judgments. Justice Gavai’s passing remarks on the Vishnu idol were enough to set off a hysterical response amongst right wing groups and individuals, many of them patronized by the regime at the Centre. The well-orchestrated outrage campaign forced the CJI to clarify that he believes in all faiths, visits all sites of worship and trusts in ‘true secularism.’