A Narrative of Panic Without Proof

 

I’ve been reflecting a lot on the recent developments surrounding the judiciary, especially in the context of Rahul Gandhi’s ongoing criticisms of the Modi government’s alleged control over it. His rhetoric often raises fears about the independence of the judiciary under this government, but when I consider historical moments, especially the Emergency period and Justice Hans Raj Khanna’s dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case, I can’t help but see a stark contrast. Khanna’s stand in the 1970s is often regarded as one of the most defining moments in India’s judicial history, a firm refusal to allow executive overreach to trample on personal liberties, even during an emergency. 

During the Emergency, the government didn’t just influence judicial appointments—it used the judiciary to justify its authoritarian measures, including the suspension of civil liberties and the detention of political opponents without trial. The ADM Jabalpur case epitomized this struggle. In a majority verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the government’s position, but Justice Khanna stood alone in dissent, upholding the sanctity of personal liberty and making a courageous stand against the executive’s overreach. His dissent wasn’t just legal; it was a moral stand for justice.

Fast forward to today, and Rahul Gandhi repeatedly raises concerns about the Modi government supposedly exerting undue influence over the judiciary. But I can’t help but notice a glaring contradiction in his actions. Recently, when Khanna's nephew, Justice Sanjay Khanna, took the oath as Chief Justice of India, Rahul Gandhi notably did not attend the ceremony. This absence speaks volumes. In a moment that should have been seen as a celebration of judicial independence, Rahul Gandhi’s absence stood out like a silent protest. He couldn’t have chosen a more symbolic moment to make a statement about the judiciary’s independence, yet he chose to be absent. It feels as though there’s a deeper political message there, one that seeks to undermine the importance of a judicial milestone that has nothing to do with the government’s influence, and everything to do with upholding the legacy of Justice Hans Raj Khanna’s principles.

For someone who frequently claims that the Modi government is controlling the judiciary, his absence at such a significant occasion makes me wonder: Is this simply political grandstanding, or does he genuinely believe that the judiciary is compromised in a way that would merit this kind of gesture? If we look at the facts, there’s no evidence to suggest that the Modi government has interfered with judicial appointments in any significant way. The appointment of judges, including the recent elevation of Justice Sanjay Khanna, has followed the constitutional process, and the government has refrained from overt interference in judicial independence.

The contrast between the judicial landscape of the 1970s and today is striking. During the Emergency, the judiciary was under direct threat, with the government actively trying to manipulate it to validate its authoritarian actions. Today, the judiciary continues to function with independence, without the same level of government interference that marked that dark period. Rahul Gandhi’s continued fears about the current government’s control over the judiciary, paired with his absence at such a meaningful moment for the judiciary, suggest that his concerns are less about reality and more about advancing a political narrative.

When I think about Justice Khanna’s legacy, I realize that it’s not just about standing up against government overreach—it’s about respecting the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. And while Rahul Gandhi seems focused on accusing the current government of undermining the judiciary, he misses an opportunity to celebrate moments that strengthen it, like the oath-taking of Khanna’s nephew. In the end, the judiciary today, much like it did in Khanna's time, remains a pillar of democracy, continuing to safeguard individual rights without bending to political influence.