While indicting the noted Muslim religious leader in a 2010 riots case, the additional district judge made several contentious remarks — which seem to reflect his controversial alignment with a particular political ideology.
India Tomorrow
NEW DELHI—A judge in Uttar Pradesh’s lower judiciary made unusual statements, raising eyebrows due to its apparent political undertones. While chargesheeting a prominent Muslim cleric-politician under serious criminal charges, including attempt to murder, for his alleged involvement in a communal violence in Bareilly in 2010, he praised Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath as a great example of a “religious person” in constitutional authority.
His remarks — which are surprising by the standard of judiciary — seem to reflect his controversial alignment with a particular political ideology.
While hearing the 2010 communal violence case, Ravi Kumar Diwakar, additional district judge at a fast track court in Bareilly, on March 5 did not stop even after heaping praise on the chief minister. He went a step ahead and accused political parties of allegedly “appeasing” a certain community (a manufactured narrative pushed forward by Hindutva forces).
He even ordered that a copy of his order be sent to Adityanath in order to enable the chief minister to take legal action against senior police officers and officials who allegedly supported the accused Muslim cleric — Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan — and disregarded the law at the “behest of the then-governing Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in state.
Judge Diwakar added Khan’s name to the chargesheet and asked him to appear before him on March 11 in connection with the case.
A well-known religious leader and the president of Ittehad-e-Millat Council (IMC), Khan was described by the judge as the main conspirator of the riots that occurred in Bareilly on March 2, 2010, following an argument over the path of a Muslim religious procession. The incident resulted in multiple injuries and property damage. The city had been under a curfew for a few days.
After recording witness’ statements, the judge concluded that the preacher’s speech to a Muslim gathering had sparked the violence.
For Pluto, ‘Justice’ Meant ‘Religion’
Judge Diwakar began by saying that having a religious person in power leads to positive outcomes. He referenced the idea of the “philosopher king” put out by Pluto in his book ‘Republic’.
He stated in his order that the philosopher had maintained there would be no end to misery in the Greek city states until they had philosopher monarchs.
“Justice is the lifeblood of a king,” he declared, clarifying that while the term “justice” is used in the legal meaning today, it was used by Pluto in a religious sense.
“Therefore, a religious person ought to be the head of power since his life is one of sacrifice and devotion rather than enjoyment. The peethadheeshwar (head of a Hindu monastery) of the venerable Siddhapeeth Gorakhnath Temple in the present era, Mahant Baba Shri Yogi Adityanath ji, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh at the moment, is an illustration of this. He has demonstrated the veracity of the aforementioned idea,” observed Judge Diwakar in the order.
However, the judge stated that riots break out and law and order is disturbed if any religious individual incites members of his community.
Khan, according to him, is one such example. The judge emphasized that the cleric has significant influence in the Muslim community because he is a religious leader who belongs to the principal dargah (shrine) of Bareilly, Ala Hazrat, which is highly respected in the community, and leads the IMC.
Judge Diwakar went on to say that “political parties here are engaged in appeasement of a particular religion” as the “main reason for riots” in India.
Because of the security that power affords, he said, the morale of notable members of that “particular religion” rises to the point where they think that even if they start riots, nothing bad will happen to them.
The judge went on to recount his stay in Varanasi and mentioned the alleged threats he faced after giving directives regarding the Gyanvapi mosque case. Despite having filed a formal complaint after receiving a 32-page threat from a Muslim organization, he added, no one has been taken into custody as of yet. According to Diwakar, this made his younger brother, a civil judge in Shahjahanpur, and his mother, who resides in Lucknow, concerned for his safety. He also mentioned that there was a general feeling of terror in his family.
The judge then brought up Khan’s alleged comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He even asserted that the cleric would have instigated a riot in Bareilly lately if CM Adityanath had not taken control of Uttar Pradesh.
He was alluding to the stone-pelting incident that happened in the western Uttar Pradesh district last month while people were leaving for a jail-bharo rally that Khan had planned against a Varanasi court’s decision to give Hindus access to the Gyanvapi mosque’s basement for worship.
Judge Diwakar then claimed that ever since he passed the verdict in the Gyanvapi case, the attitude of people of a “particular religion” and officials towards him had become strange. “It seemed that I had committed some sin by giving the verdict in the Gyanvapi case,” he said, stressing that he passed the order as per legal provisions.
Regarding the Bareilly rioting case, the judge criticised the alleged inaction of the police and government officials in failing to include Khan’s name in the chargesheet despite there being sufficient evidence in the investigation. He noted that in India, rarely has the mastermind of a riot been punished.
Khan was taken into custody, but his name did not appear on the chargesheet.
Diwakar is not the only judge who has caused controversy in the Gyanvapi Masjid-Kashi Vishwanath case.
Varanasi’s former District Judge Ajaya Kumar Vishvesha, who gave Hindus access to the Gyanvapi mosque’s basement for prayers on his last day of work on January 31, was recently appointed as Lokpal of Lucknow University. Adityanath is the university’s chair by virtue of his position as chief minister.
The observations made by Judge Diwakar appear to intertwine religious beliefs with the administration of justice, which is a departure from the principle of secularism that underpins modern legal systems.
While acknowledging the importance of justice, the judge’s assertion that the head of state should be a religious person and specifically praising Chief Minister Adityanath as an example of this belief raises questions about judge’s impartiality and neutrality.
Moreover, linking the concept of justice to religious dedication and sacrifice may not align with the principles of a secular and democratic society, where public officials are expected to uphold the rule of law irrespective of their personal religious beliefs.
Furthermore, singling out a specific individual for praise while invoking serious criminal charges against another individual based on their religious identity could suggest bias or prejudice in the judicial process.
It’s crucial for judges to uphold the principles of impartiality, fairness and independence in their judgments and statements to ensure the integrity of the legal system and maintain public trust in the judiciary. Any perceived deviation from these principles can undermine the credibility of the judiciary and raise concerns about the fairness of legal proceedings.
