A video clip of the following speech, made by a Former Justice of the Bombay High Court, Justice B.G. Kolse Patil, has recently surfaced on Twitter:
In the video clip, Former Justice B.G. Kolse Patil, who was once also accused of sexual misconduct, appears to be inciting a gathering of Muslims to hit the streets in large numbers without fear (given the large Indian Muslim population of 20-25 crores) in an attempt to pressurize the current Indian Government and he then further goes on to declare that it is upto the Indian Muslims to decide if they want the streets of India to remain dead or whether they want to die fighting.
The speech by Former Justice B.G. Kolse Patil is clearly an inflammatory one which violates the reasonable restrictions on free speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India, and is prima facie sufficient grounds for launching a criminal investigation against Former Justice B.G. Kolse Patil under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Based on the above speech and various other provocative, controversial and partisan commentaries attributed to the Former Justice B.G. Kolse Patil (all of which is available in the public domain), once wonders if Former Justice B.G. Kolse Patil who appears to have a blatant disregard for the Constitution and laws of India, was a person fit enough to hold office of a High Court Judge in India?
The reader may make up his/her mind about the above question. However, the manner in which Former Justice B.G. Kolse Patil was appointed to office of Judge of Bombay High Court is something that he himself had once revealed in an interview to activist Teesta Setalvad:
In the above video between 4:26 to 5:00 Former Justice B.G. Kolse Patil himself admits that it was pursuant to the political interference of former Maharashtra Chief Minister Vasantdada Patil of the Indian National Congress, in the affairs of the Supreme Court Judicial collegium, that Former Justice B.G. Kolse Patil was appointed as Judge of Bombay High Court.
The above instance therefore brings to light the serious danger posed to the Indian constitution and rule of law in India as a result of political appointments of partisan and ideologically committed persons to high Judicial office in india.
The writer of this post in a humble attempt to expose partisans in Indian Judiciary, wishes to also bring to the attention of readers and public alike, the partisan views of a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court, Justice Gautam Patel, whose political views and ideological commitments despite being well documented in public domain did not come in the way of him being appointed to Judicial Office:
His criticism of the political leader Late Balasaheb Thackeray as a fascist for his alleged role in the 1992 Bombay riots (Incidentally, the last will and testament was a subject matter of Testamentary Suit in Bombay High Court which was also adjudicated upon by Justice Gautam Patel):
“Against those who instigated, triggered and participated in the carnage, and ravaged forever the face of an entire city, nothing followed. Nothing, that is, except two decades later, a valorization of Bal Thackeray that is as perplexing as it is disquieting. Not because he had legions of followers, but because in accepting the elision of the past of people like him, we move ourselves closer to fascism and an acceptance of everything we should not aim to be, everything our Constitution demands we not become.”
His criticism of the Allahabad High Court’s verdict on demolition of Babri Masjid and construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya:
“The findings and orders of the special full bench of the Allahabad High Court on the successful Bhagwan Sri Ram suit and the dismissed Wakf Board suit demand close examination. Central to the final order are two findings – that the disputed site in Ayodhya is the birthplace of Ram, and that it is a juridical entity. Both conclusions are of extremely doubtful legal tenability. In addition, it is on the basis of the dubious legal proposition of faith and belief that the court arrives at a finding of legal and lawful ownership. The placing of idols in the disputed site in 1949 was as much an act of illegality as the events of 6 December 1992, but the court gingerly steps around them. In short, its September 2010 verdict surrenders judicial soundness and integrity for political expedience.”
His views on the political ideology of Communism:
“It is fashionable today to belittle and decry communism and Marxism, and even to equate it with anti-nationalism. This is a shame, because this attitude overlooks matters that are, or should be, fundamental…”
His views on Cow Slaughter Bill in Karnataka:
“Beef is food to many; not coincidentally, Dalits and Muslim.”
“there is no similar act about sheep, goats, fish or fowl – is less about animal rights than right-wingery and reactionary politics. It is a surreptitious destruction of entire communities by undermining their lives.”
“The now-beleaguered Yedurapp offered a bedazzling explanation. “Cow slaughter ban is in force in Cuba and Iran,” he said in 2010, and went on, with all the emphasis at his considerable command to outline the therapeutic advantages of a daily quaff of a holy cow’s micturition; divine bovine urine.
His views regarding 2002 riots in Gujarat:
“Based as we are in Bombay, at this distance from what transpired in Gujarat, in the initial days following the riots in 2002, we were at sea about what we could do and how we could contribute towards seeking justice for the victims of the events. Teesta Setalvad and others called a series of meetings at that point to explain clearly what the on-ground reality of Gujarat was and how, as concerned citizens, we could help make a difference. The other avenue where specialised help was required, of course was that of legal work. With respect to this second proposition, a number of us have been helping out as best we could and I’ve appeared for R.B. Sreekumar (former Gujarat director general of police) before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This man has been hounded for standing his ground against the government and the threats/pressure he’s been living under is astounding. Luckily, we got a good bench who weren’t easily swayed. They weren’t pressurised (or if they were, they withstood it really well) and justice was done.”
(Source: Teesta Setalvad’s magazine Communalism Combat published in Feb-March 2012)