राजनीति

Criticising Centre not anti-India: Lawyers on law minister's remark on judges

Lawyers practicing in courts across the country issued a statement objecting to Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju’s recent remark that some retired judges are part of an anti-India gang.

Over 300 lawyers of the Supreme Court and the different high courts called out the minister for his statement at the India Today Conclave on March 18.

Rijiju had said: ‘It is a few of the retired judges - maybe three or four - a few of those activists, part of the anti-India gang. These people are trying to make the Indian judiciary play the role of the opposition party. How can these people openly say the Indian judiciary (should) take the government head on?”

The lawyers urged the minister to publicly withdraw his remarks and refrain from making such remarks in the future.

The lawyers said that they deprecate the unwarranted attack against retired judges of the Supreme Court, and called the allegations of anti-nationalism against them ‘a new low in the public discourse of our great nation’

The lawyers said that the minister transgressed all limits of constitutional propriety by claiming that these judges were members of an ‘anti-India gang’ and threatening that “no one will escape” and that “those who work against the country will pay the price”.

According to the lawyers, by threatening the retired judges, the law minister is clearly sending a message to every citizen that no voice of dissent will be spared.

Condemning Rijiju’s remarks, the lawyers argued that bullying is unbecoming of the minister's high office and reminded Kiren Rijiju that criticism of the government is neither against the nation nor unpatriotic and not “anti-India”.

The lawyers, in their statement, reminded Rijiju of PM Modi’s statement that the toughest questions and criticisms must be levelled against governments, as that is the only way to keep governments alert and responsive.

According to the lawyers, the minister must realise that, by virtue of his office, he is the bridge between the executive and the judicial wings of the state, and that he must maintain a dignified public discourse.

Lawyers said that the right of every citizen to dissent, criticise and peacefully oppose any government and its policies or functioning is an inherent basic human right, which is also constitutionally protected. Criticism of the government does not authorise a high state functionary to besmirch any individual’s patriotism,