Congress MP Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Tuesday hit out the ruling BJP government regarding its governance “antics” using the judiciary. The Modi government’s approach to the judiciary hints toward the three I’s – Intimidation, interference and influence and it can equally be accused of the three S’s – Sabotage, subjugation and subverting the judiciary.
“This deadly combination of the three I’s along with the three S’s is deplorable. It is now possibly the worst kept secret both in legal circles and outside that this control-freak, the micromanagement and dossier-loving government and its ruling party have indulged in several manipulative tactics qua the judiciary,” Singhvi said.
Also Read: Cong: BJP desperately attacking judiciary, it’s a disturbing issue
He pointed out that the Centre has been “excessively but selectively” delaying the judicial appointment proposals for the high courts and the Supreme Court. He further said that this ruling party has “arbitrarily bifurcated” approved judicial appointee lists where few appointments have been additionally made a few months after the initial appointments from the same common list, thereby “irreversibly prejudicing their inter se seniority”.
Singhvi further said the BJP government has created an atmosphere of “fear, trepidation, anxiety and hesitation” among the judicial sector by the misuse of the “dossier raj”. He also accused the ruling government of attempting to install a “section of judicial personnel” after being examined by the government on “impermissible tests of loyalty, ideology and commitment to its own norms”.
{{/usCountry}}Singhvi further said the BJP government has created an atmosphere of “fear, trepidation, anxiety and hesitation” among the judicial sector by the misuse of the “dossier raj”. He also accused the ruling government of attempting to install a “section of judicial personnel” after being examined by the government on “impermissible tests of loyalty, ideology and commitment to its own norms”.
{{/usCountry}}Referring to the Mohammad Zubair case, Singhvi said the entire army of law officers was put out to oppose bail matters related to the fact-checker. “In a worse case of shooting the messenger while ignoring the message, they (senior law officers) were speaking in defence of those whose illegal conducts have been exposed by that fact-checker. It was a sad sight,” he said.
Taking note of SC’s July 10 judgement on bail jurisprudence, he said it is much-needed guidance from the apex court about the approach to bails and about how “bail, not jail” being the norm is operationalised in practice.