“The Biggest Challenge Facing the Judiciary Today Is Fear” | Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari

In my opinion, the biggest question before the judiciary today is fear. Otherwise, how is it possible that the Election Commission is committing such blatant illegalities and no one is saying anything? So, how independent and free do you consider the judiciary to be in today's times? It is not necessary for the government to pressure everyone. We People themselves are succumbing to pressure when they shouldn't be. Don't you think these are extraordinary times and you will have to take extraordinary steps as well? The problems Muslims have with the judiciary are those related to their religion. Their faith in it is continuously diminishing. The Sambhal case is before us; Saharanpur, which I have covered personally from the ground. Where you said at night, without any notice, that we are only sealing it, and then you bulldozed it. Just look at this, the Supreme Court is telling Umar Khalid not to come for a year. Has any court ever told anyone "don't come" until today? This is a new era, a new law, a new Supreme Court. Don't you think that if justice is delayed this much, it is also justice denied? And for so long that you have completely ruined someone's life. If not now, when? Exactly. We are going through such bad times that if we don't speak up now, when will we? At 'Now', we bring you stories through data and ground realities that are often suppressed or misrepresented. We are an independent platform. Meaning, we have no corporate backing behind us. You are our real strength. If you want such true and essential stories to keep coming your way, please share our videos as much as possible. Subscribe to the channel, and if it is possible for you, support us via the QR code on the screen so that we can continue bringing you stories and keep working. Greetings, you are watching Now Network. I am Bushra Khan Fahad with you. If you are only getting disappointment from every direction, then in such a situation, where should one look for justice? This has become a big question. You see what is being done to Muslims in this country. The way their educational institutions are being targeted. The way they are being accused, and on the basis of suspicion, being beaten to death. Meaning, they are being lynched. Everything associated with them and their identity has been called into question. When those in power start working against them, then just imagine, where are they supposed to go? In such a situation, they look at the judicial system with a glimmer of hope that when they aren't getting justice anywhere else, perhaps the judge will rule in their favor. But if they only encounter disappointment there too, or if justice is dispensed based on their religion, or if the very meaning of justice is changed for them, then where exactly should they go? And today, we will talk about all these topics, all these aspects, and to discuss this, I have a very special guest with me in the studio today. You are all well acquainted with him. With me in the studio is the former Chief Justice of Patna High Court, Justice Iqbal Ansari. Iqbal Sahab, a very warm welcome to you on the Nowz Network. My very first question to you, Iqbal Sahab, is how difficult is it to be a Muslim judge in this era or to be a part of this system, and what major difference do you feel between this "New India," as it is called, before 2014 and after 2014? My journey has been quite...I would say it has passed without much trouble. My problems started from 2013. And in 2014-15...It started feeling like the atmosphere of India's courts was also changing a bit. But I will definitely say that even today, if you look, there are some cases where you can predict that something might go wrong. In the rest of the cases, you are getting almost the same orders that should be expected, and perhaps that is why the judiciary is still functioning. Otherwise, people would stop going to court, and that would be very bad for India, because in any democracy, if people stop expecting from the courts, it means your civil society is not built on the rule of law. The rule of law means that the law is what rules. What we call, there won't be jungle raj. We...Where everyone does whatever they please. That cannot happen. We in India remain very worried that we have too many pending cases. We actually have fewer cases. But if you go to places like Singapore, their viewpoint is that it is good to have more cases. Because it shows that the public still has trust somewhere. A place where the public can vent what we call...Their feelings. They can let it all out. And if there is no outlet for that, then...After that, yes, resorting to arms is all that’s left; there won’t be anything else. So, are you still saying that people in India have faith in the judiciary, and that is why you think that...I am not saying this. Hmm. That is because Muslims—people and Muslims—should perhaps be viewed in two different ways. As for the problems that Muslims have themselves...Those in the judiciary that are related to their religion...Their faith in that is gradually diminishing. What in English is called, you can foretell...What is going to happen, and almost exactly that is happening. This is very, very bad for the judiciary. But, regarding issues other than those specific to Muslims, the law is likely being followed. That is what I think. That is why people are still going to court. Do they have any other option? Because look, they can clearly see that the government is working against them. If we talk about institutions—the independent institutions or the constitutional bodies that are before us—if we look at them, it doesn't seem like they stand with them or seem to speak in their favor. It feels as if they are currently functioning as puppets of the government, and the two most disappointing things at present are the judiciary and the Election Commission, which was considered completely independent until now; they are under the most scrutiny. And a poor person, someone standing on the margins with no power, looks toward the courts as a last resort, and perhaps they have no other option. Don't you think so? So that is why they feel that sooner or later, however it may be, perhaps they might get justice; and that is why they still knock on the court's door. Look, that category doesn't include only Muslims. Hindus are also in that category. Christians are also in that category. Even Sikhs are there. If you listen to the Sikhs today, you will realize this. There is a meeting on the 26th in Chandigarh regarding this very matter. So it’s not that it isn't happening to the Sikhs. They can also see it. Therefore, it’s not just happening to Muslims. That is not the case. It is definitely happening to the Muslims, though. Besides that, perhaps it happens that when an injustice is committed against someone, we (not Muslims, but as individual human beings) remain silent, thinking that it doesn't concern us. But they don't realize that what is happening to 'A' today will happen to 'B' tomorrow, and to 'C' the day after. Because what is wrong is wrong and it cannot be right, so a person who is in a position where he can commit injustice while sitting in the chair of justice. If you make a mistake consciously, then I have no issue; there are many judgments that people give incorrectly, but they give them innocently. You cannot point fingers at that. But where you know that these points were in our favor. They were suppressed. These points were not in our favor. They were highlighted, and things were done like that. Hmm. So, this much is understandable. Everyone understands it for themselves. Muslims understand it too. So, how independent and how free do you consider the judiciary to be in today's times? Look, being independent does not mean that you can give whatever verdict you want. Hmm. Being independent means that there should be no pressure on you. That is exactly what I mean, whether there is any government pressure or influence on you regarding what kind of verdicts you give. I still don't feel that anyone can pressure every single judge. That is not possible. The judges themselves have become fearful. There are two reasons for that. One is that they see that if we don't succumb, then this harm will come to us. Justice Loya. Justice Loya is an example in front of us. That is a very painful example. Yes. And did you notice, or not, that in that case the Supreme Court said there is nothing in it. Yes. And the Supreme Court then also said that regarding what we are deciding, there will be no FIR anywhere. There will be no complaint anywhere. How can that happen? His sister is speaking out. His son is speaking out. He is even coming to court and speaking. How can you forbid him? That you cannot go to the police and file a complaint. You are conducting an inquiry. You are conducting that inquiry in such a way that it can never be raised again. You even do this. This is what shows you that you are not being fair. And if you look at that judgment, it was by Justice Chandrachud and Justice Khanwilkar. Hmm. Both of them are very good judges. Yes, so that is why I am asking you, because I also want to understand through you. Sometimes it happens that we make very passing remarks, saying that if the verdicts are against us, or against a section of society, or contrary to expectations, when you had expected that the provisions of the Constitution say this and this should happen. The law says this, but still, you see that by sidelining all of that, some other orders are coming. So, we feel a sense of hopelessness, and in a passing remark, we might say that all hope for justice is gone. So, that is why I want to understand from you that in this day and age, when we see that a goon named Satender Bhardwaj gets bail within a few days. But people like Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have been in jail for years without a trial. So, there is not just one, but dozens of examples related to different issues like this. I can place them before you. See, whatever I am saying, you should note that. Hmm. It is not necessary that the government exerts pressure on everyone. Hmm. People themselves are succumbing to pressure, which they shouldn't have. Because a judge's oath is that I will decide cases according to the law, without fear or favor; both are included. You can show favor by taking money as well. Fear also falls into the same category, that you will do injustice if you are afraid. If you are fearful. I think the biggest question before the judiciary today is fear. Otherwise, how can it be that the Election Commission is committing such blatant illegalities and no one is saying anything? Our judges sitting in the Supreme Court, who will later become the Chief Justice of India too. They say it wasn't given this time. So, give it next time. We will give it next time. What does this mean? 2.6 million people, or rather 2.7 million people. Like it happened in Delhi, hmm. You, for so many people. Yes. The name is not there, hmm. They will be added, but imagine if they are not given, how would that feel? And if your right to vote is linked to your citizenship. Then it is even more dangerous, which is not the Election Commission's domain at all. Yes. Everywhere, anchors ask, "Well, you at least agree that no foreigner's name should be on the voter list, right?" Which fool would say that a foreigner's name should be there? But that doesn't mean they should start deciding who is a foreigner and who isn't. The judicial officers that the Supreme Court has appointed today. What are they appointed for? Why have they been appointed? Who gave you the power to do whatever you want? The Election Commission will decide for itself what to do or not do, you should look at its mistakes. Hmm. The very first question is, does the Election Commission of India have the power that Kapil Sibal keeps talking about, that you will decide citizenship? I mean, if your name is not on the voter list, your passport won't be renewed either. Yes. That's why it is being said indirectly that you are bringing in CAA-NRC through the back door, because most of the people likely to be excluded are either not BJP voters (in most cases, I am not saying all, but in most cases) or are Muslims. We have the example of West Bengal in front of us, regarding what is happening there, and if the courts take so long just to decide whether something is constitutional or not, that several elections pass by in the meantime. It's an amazing, amazing thing. Very sad, and that too in the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court. And when you see that if any decision comes in favor of the public or in favor of Muslims, or goes against the government's narrative. Then it is celebrated. Why is that? How strange it is that this is a democratic system. Or is this a constitutional body that is running everything? There is a law here, and if a judge gives a decision that is actually how the decision should have been. So why have we started celebrating it? Whether we talk about Justice Muralidhar or a few other examples we have before us. Why have we started celebrating this? Why does it seem like if justice is delivered, it should be celebrated? Meaning, this implies that in most cases, justice is not being delivered. It is not being delivered. That's right. Even today, we saw a Supreme Court judgment or order where they said that where bail is granted due to constitutional provisions, it will not be treated according to the statute. It's a very good decision. Hmm. Let's see what happens. Just look at this, for Umar Khalid, the Supreme Court is saying let the case be delayed for a year. Yes. Has any court ever told someone not to come? This is a new era, a new law, a new Supreme Court. That goes so far as to tell people not to come for a whole year. Hmm. I mean, it's unbelievable. It’s very distressing to see such things. Very much so. And it's not just me. Hmm. There are many non-Muslims who feel that this is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Meaning, all justice-loving people. Hmm. They must all feel that this is not right. This is wrong. If...Like, sorry, no, please. For instance, the Babri Masjid case. I was just coming to that. Yes. Well, even in that, nothing makes sense from any angle. How can this happen? Such a verdict at the Supreme Court level, where you push all the evidence aside and give a declaration. What kind of law is this? And will courts now make decisions based on faith? I mean, courts should rely on proofs, right? There should be evidence. It’s good that Chandrachud wrote it based on faith. If Justice Nazeer had written it, they would have said Allah was guiding him. No. Absolutely! Absolutely! Absolutely! And if that judge, Chandrachud, a CJI whom we thought was "liberal"...Although we found out about him later, it was said about him, and there was hope that if he is the CJI, we could perhaps expect better justice. But if, before that, he is seen standing with the Prime Minister performing prayers at his home, and he says he had to seek refuge in God the night before giving the verdict, then what is the meaning of that verdict? Look, in that verdict, the court admitted that no temple was demolished to build it there. The matter should have ended right there. The court also admitted that there was no temple there. There is no such evidence. The court also acknowledged that since the mosque was built in the name of a king, prayers must have been held there at that time. When did that stop? If you stop it by a court order, you cannot say that prayers don't happen there. Now, after all this, you say that under Article 142 or 136, because the Supreme Court has the power to give any direction to ensure complete justice...Then where are you providing complete justice? Hmm. He said that we want to put an end to this issue once and for all. That sounds like bullying, doesn't it? But don't you think that a Pandora's box has been opened after that verdict? There is a list of about 30 to 40 thousand mosques that circulates on the WhatsApp groups of the RSS, VHP, and all other Hindutva organizations, and one by one, every few days, a new mosque comes into the headlines. We have the Sambhal case before us. In Saharanpur, which I covered on the ground myself, you claimed you were only sealing it, but you demolished it overnight without any justification. The Moradabad mosque, and apart from that, the mosque in Madhya Pradesh, the Kamal Maula mosque—how do you see all this? You set a precedent with the Babri Masjid verdict, but Muslims were told to accept it for the sake of one mosque and that the matter would be buried forever. But things didn't stay buried; this is a whole box. He didn't just open it. Yes. It was Justice Chandrachud who opened it, wasn't it? Yes. So what was the case where that fountain was seen—the Banaras case? Yes, yes, Gyanvapi. Gyanvapi, hmm. He was the one who ruled that this Act does not bar any survey or research. There is no bar. But if you believe that this Act is excluding it, then what are you trying to prove by doing research or surveys? Because any judicial act must reach a logical conclusion, right? So if you are saying that there is no bar in the Places of Worship Act for research or surveys, then where will it stop? Research and surveys can be conducted on any mosque. It can happen at any time. It can be on any grounds, and then how will you say that the research found it was a temple, Hmm. and it was built forcefully, so now it should be...But if there is a Places of Worship Act, then how do courts allow surveys of any mosque? The Places of Worship Act has also been challenged. Its constitutionality is under challenge in the Supreme Court, and if by any chance the Supreme Court strikes it down, you cannot even imagine what will happen next. But Bal Sahab, that is still happening even now. It is happening, but now it is happening less. Hmm. "Few and far between," as they say, but at that rate, it will happen to every single one. Hardly any mosque will be left. But right now, the courts issue orders like an ASI survey whenever someone files a petition claiming a mosque is built on disputed land. Or claiming that there was a temple underneath, or claiming that a well was found beneath it. Like the Saharanpur mosque—although there’s no evidence yet of what kind of well it was; a well is just for water. It could even be used for Wudu. It could be anything. But just to show that, look, invaders came here. They captured this. They demolished temples. They built mosques, and after that, if you look, at every street corner and junction, it’s like a door has been opened where you can label any mosque a "disputed mosque." So, what is the responsibility of the courts in such a situation? Suppose any individual goes there and says, "This mosque...there used to be a temple here.""This was disputed, and I want a survey done," so should the court just do that, or should the court just shut it down? It should just shut it down, because maintaining social order is also the court's responsibility, right? You enforce the law so that social order remains. Hmm. And if you destroy that social order, then what will happen to society? Are the court's decisions being made based on religion? Some cases certainly are. Not all cases, but some cases are definitely such that we can say they are based on religion. This shouldn't happen, but it is happening. And this is very unfortunate. If, for 20-25 years, under charges of terrorism...Young boys are arrested and then they come out as old men. And then, after all that, all the charges against them aren't even proven. In such a case, what meaning does justice even have left? Don't you think that if justice is delayed this much, it is also justice denied? And for that long, you have completely destroyed someone's entire life. And after that, you couldn't even prove it in court. So, it is clearly evident from this that somewhere, because they belong to a particular religion or are accused of terrorism, do you think you have full freedom to do this, or is your viewpoint something else? No, this is it. Because after such long incarceration, when a man comes out, his life is already ruined. On top of that, he would also be sad that I got an acquittal, but my life is ruined too. The lives of their family members are also ruined. Anyone should think about this with eyes closed because for judges, I believe, for my own part, we...Keep getting very emotionally upset. A judge. Sometimes you don't understand what decision you have to make. Does that happen? Many times. Not many times, but sometimes it definitely happens. Has it happened with you? It has happened with me too. There is nothing like that. It has happened. And for this, you don't need a very big case, like a triple murder. It could be a small case too. Where you don't understand what should be done. Let me give you an example. An application for bail came before me. In that, it happened that tea, which is in a box, you know, they call it 'teachests', so 'teachests' were being transported in a truck. The truck overturned. The truck overturned, so people, all the villagers reached there, and then someone took some tea leaves and started walking towards their home. Others followed him too. In a little while, the whole village had taken it. Now, the truck owner filed a case. The police raided and recovered the tea leaves from people's homes and seized them. They arrested them. So, when they came, those people had already spent a day or two in jail. So I felt this is a very minor case. Bail should be granted. There is no question of not granting it. But when I started dictating the order, I felt, no, it would be wrong if bail is granted. A person has suffered such immense ruin, and people are taking it as a joke. This sends a signal; society must definitely get a lesson. That's why they should not get bail. Thinking this, I put the record aside. Then a thought occurred to me. That these are not thieves. They could not resist their temptation. They saw it and took it. Maybe no one has ever offered me money either. If someone had offered me money, perhaps I would have taken it. In that sense, I thought, okay, I should give it to him. Then I came over here. Then, I felt, you know, In such cases, a person's true self, their moral fiber, is revealed by how far they can resist temptation. So if they can't resist the temptation, then what is the point of them? I put it here, meaning, well, see, I don't remember, there are so many. Hmm. Many factors started coming one after another, bang, bang, bang, just like we see in movies. It kept coming to my mind that no, I moved it from here to there about five or seven times; what would you call this, sir? I have no connection with those people. And one judge might look at it one way, and another judge might look at it differently; one might grant bail, another might not. This is possible. But the judgments that are coming are exactly what I’m saying, it's blatant; these things are impossible, yet you are giving verdicts that heavily favor Muslims, you are suppressing them, not discussing them. Or you are delaying them so much that they become meaningless; if someone’s entire youth is spent in jail, then what are you...Just consider Umar Khalid or Sharjeel Imam, six years is a very long time. And Muralidhar said, no, give us a full report, keep the commission, what happened here or not. You, of course, transferred him, and you enforced it that very same evening. You sent him off to Chandigarh. Yes. At least this much is understood, right? That the judiciary, I mean, the Prime Minister isn't doing this, nor is the Home Minister; the judges are the ones doing it. So do you feel that some examples are being set in this way? We talked about Justice Loya, or the way some judges who are righteous, who look at what the law says or what their conscience dictates—of course that is involved too—like the example you just gave, and they are giving verdicts based on that, so they get transferred again and again, or they don't get their due promotions. So do you think examples have been set and are being set within the judiciary, and that there is a message for other judges as well that if you work this way, it's fine, otherwise, the same will happen to you all? Just understand that a judge, what was her name, that lady who was an army officer...Yes, it is slipping my mind too. Are you talking about Operation Sindoor? Operation Sindoor, yes. In that, they took suo motu cognizance and they were transferred. Others will also get scared, plus you might not make them Chief Justice even if they have a chance, because no one will fight for a judge; so this is very, because the system you have created, earlier a hierarchy was maintained. You knew I would go up to here and not beyond that. Today, you can reach anywhere. Like this now...Sanjiv Khanna was there, Chief Justice for six months, I must say his tenure as Chief Justice went well. But he was lifted up from number 35. So he superseded 34 people. Why? Just because he would get 6 months of time. As a CJI, this can happen, and regarding others in the Supreme Court, it is just that after Kabir Sahab, no other CJI has been from Kolkata. Can that be a ground? Do you also feel that something like this has ever happened to you? Do you think that after the judgment you gave regarding the CBI, do you think that the promotion you should have received, or were you just...With me, it was absolutely clear. Our Justice Gogoi, Ranjan Gogoi, who became Chief Justice, was against me; no one could overrule him or...Nobody could "cast aside" what they say, because his proximity to power was very high. Like when the Prime Minister came to see the Supreme Court, the present Prime Minister, he even went to his chamber. He sat there and drank tea. Why would he drink tea in his chamber? He should have had tea with everyone else, right? And arrangements for tea were made for everyone. You are making him drink it in your chamber. What is the meaning of this? And then he even went to the Rajya Sabha. And you would have gone to the Rajya Sabha too. If due process had been followed with you, you would be in the Supreme Court today. A Supreme Court judge, meaning before retirement, you would have retired as a Supreme Court judge. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, I have no doubt about this. Did it have any effect on you, because when a person works hard, has a degree, and goes through a process to become a Chief Justice...One expects that...I haven't stopped thinking about that. I won't say that. Hmm, hmm. This Hemant Gupta, who gave the order on hijab in the Supreme Court...Yes. He was our number one judge. The most senior-most. Hmm. So, after my farewell lunch, when I came toward the court, he asked me, what is your program? So I stopped. Hmm. I still remember. I told him, That I have no idea, I am not thinking anything. I only know that I am leaving from here at 4:00 PM. Beyond that, I cannot think of anything. Such a situation comes upon a person. And I left there a day early because I did not want to retire from there. A day before I was supposed to retire, I came there from Patna. What do they call it? Bihar Bhawan, where the Chief Justice's suite is. The next day, our Registrar General brought cake and things. Hmm. All that happened. Then my people told me that the Bihar Bhawan staff said you have to vacate this now. A new Chief Justice will come, and that is fair. Yes. So they will give me another suite. But my wife said, no, we won't go to another suite from here; our daughter lived in Nizamuddin. We moved into her flat. The next morning I woke up and sat on the bed, just kept thinking. So my wife asked, what happened? I said, look, if I stay here, I will die because the whole house just disappears in a flat. We never lived in a flat. Hmm. Because in Assam, there was no constraint on space. Today it might be different, but by the time I became a District Judge. The flat system was very rare there. Very, very rarely. So homes, even those of District Judges, were huge. High Court Judges also had huge houses. Now, if you live like that for so long and then suddenly move into a flat. And that too, a three-room flat. Then what would happen? Then we started searching, and When we looked, it was turning out to be quite expensive according to our budget, and everyone thinks so. It was around 150 to 160 monthly. So I told my wife, give me a year's time; if arbitration takes off within a year, it's fine, otherwise we will go back. It took off, so I stayed here. Now, just a day or two ago, I spoke with him. Sanjib Banerjee, we People forget, and some don't even know. Sanjib Banerjee was a judge from the High Court. He was considered a very brilliant judge. He was transferred to Chennai. There was some issue there, I don't remember exactly what on what grounds. So, he was transferred from there and sent to Shillong, and in his place, this person who was here, Sanjay, what was his name? He was a very good judge. Hmm. He was sent there, he went to the Supreme Court, the other one went to Shillong, then he retired from there, so his retirement farewell happened in court. Then he got into his car and drove all the way back himself. I mean, a person gets so mentally harassed. Just imagine. A man is driving a car from Shillong. A judge, and it’s not like he is a professional driver, and he comes all the way to Delhi. From Shillong to Delhi. Yes. So what must be that person's mental state of mind? My question to you, Justice Ansari, is that I have been continuously working on many such hate crimes and all of this, and I still am. Be it lynching or the Delhi riots, the kind of riots and things we have seen. I find that, especially in lynching cases, I see that video evidence is clearly available. Where those people have done Facebook Lives and all these things. But even after that, the FIR is registered against unknown persons. So in such a case, when they go and testify or if they are presenting video evidence in courts, then what should be the responsibility of the courts? Because those people feel that they demand justice; they say with bated breath that they want justice because lynching is such a heinous crime. The way someone is heartlessly beaten to death. A mob kills them. So they say with bated breath that they want justice. When I ask them, when I asked, "Do you think you will get justice from the court?" They say no, but still, they want justice. It is very unfortunate. This should not be happening. We don't understand what level we have reached. Talk to any judge who was in the judiciary before and is no longer there. No one is celebrating this situation. Everyone will tell you that this is very wrong. Just think, this has become, in a way, history that will always remain: that a Leader of Opposition goes and sits in a police station for six-seven hours just to get an FIR registered, which is the most preliminary step in any criminal investigation. How can you refuse an FIR? Even if I am lying, you must register the complaint; if not, then you must tell me why. It is unbelievable, and after that, if the CJI says that law and order in India is fine—it is not fine, neither the Home Minister can say that, nor the CJI. Nor can the Chief Justice of Delhi say that. If this has become the situation, then what is the Delhi Chief Justice doing? It is not that the Chief Justice of Delhi is powerless. And the way those children were brutally treated on July 20th, the use of pellet guns, the indecency towards women—it is clearly visible what the police officers themselves are seen doing; how they are inserting sticks and such into their private parts in the name of stopping them. I am very uncomfortable saying this, but I have to say what is in front of us, and in such a situation, don't you think the court should have taken suo motu cognizance that...Absolutely, it should have. Absolutely, it should have. How can this happen? I remember once a demonstration was happening in Guwahati. It was some tea garden labor community. Hmm. So, they were in the capital, Dispur, and they were shouting slogans and such. Then, when they left from there, it was a matter of the crowd. They might have thrown some stones here and there. So, people there got together and beat them up quite a bit. There was a girl who was—what do you call it in Hindi—stripped naked. They stripped her naked and she was running, and people were running after her. Hmm. With mobile phones in hand. Not to call the police. But rather to take her photograph. Hmm. This is it, and it was shown on TV; that is when I raised the question, what is our CJM doing? Because even a CJM has the power to take cognizance based on information or knowledge. If you are watching this on TV, isn't that your knowledge? Aren't you receiving this information? You are reading it in the paper the next day. Are you not getting it? So, our Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court—is he not getting it? Then how is it that he is not taking cognizance himself or directing someone to take it? It's amazing. I mean, for a Chief Justice, it is a shameful thing that you are unable to control this. And if this is the state of the Delhi Chief Justice...Then what about the rest? What will happen in other places? And if the Chief Minister of Delhi, that is, Arvind Kejriwal, says, "I do not want to appear before Justice Bala because she attends RSS programs and I know what judgment she will give," then is this not a shameful matter for the judiciary? See, I believe that whenever someone has a doubt or suspicion that they won't get justice from a certain judge, that judge should step aside. It’s not for me to decide, and I will be the one to do it. What does that mean? This makes it look like what Kejriwal is saying is correct. You have your own interest. If you don't, then why didn't you step aside? We Are you the only judge in the Delhi High Court? There are so many. You must also be seeing, Justice Ansari, the way lawyers are filing petitions these days. They themselves are also filing petitions. People know these Hindutva groups—these are lawyers in their favor, and these are lawyers against them. So, if lawyers are divided among themselves in this way, or if someone is presented in court, and beforehand, a person of a particular religion outside says we won't let anyone take this case, or if they are seen protesting against it, or if such things are seen happening, won't people lose complete faith in this profession? See, I will give you an example. Yes. We were in the bar. Hmm. So, one of our senior members had a tea estate in their family. And they had a dispute with some people, and the case was ongoing. Hmm. Then one day, when they were coming towards the court, they cornered him in the garden and killed him. Hmm. A Bar Association meeting was held. Lawyers always unite in the bar. They united. And a decision was made—I didn't realize it back then as I was new—that no one would take his case, and then the case was transferred to another district. Hmm. That’s when we realized that this is the right thing to do. A lawyer's duty is to take the case. If we tell him that no one will take this case, then transferring that case is justified. So, the same situation applies to lawyers who are becoming biased today; there are even situations like, see, it is often said about Kapil Sibal that he called Ram Setu imaginary. Hmm. First, we used to call it a myth, didn't we? In school, when we studied it, it was referred to as mythology. It is a myth. It has no reality. Yes. Yes. This is after 2016. I...I was talking to someone, and I said that even if the Mahabharata and Ramayana are works of imagination, the standard was very high. Yes. Otherwise, how could a person think of so much? So, he started arguing with me, saying that this is reality. Yes. Just think, if he considers Rama to be reality, then he will also believe in Rama Setu. True. Absolutely. My question to you is also this, which was coming to my mind, that you have worked in this system for your entire life. You have had a long and full career. If a common Indian citizen, especially a citizen who considers themselves weak, or someone who feels that they belong to a minority community, then I want to ask you, if the belief that they won't get justice in the courts is completely removed from their mind, then don't you think that our entire structure—the constitution that makes it—don't you think its image is crumbling right in front of our eyes and most people are just sitting there watching it as spectators? It is certainly crumbling and...Those who are senior must understand this, and there should be a solution for it too. What the solution is, we all understand. But what I am telling you is very dangerous; the day an entire community feels that the system is against them, then what will they do? Yes. You have put two out of four people inside, and if this happens to an entire community, then what will you do? And this is not the first time this is happening in history, right? In history, it happens exactly like this; you have seen how two people became four, then thousands and lakhs. And what if permission to protest is not even granted? You just saw, the Muslim Personal Law Board gave a call for a protest at Jantar Mantar. They...it was cancelled...they were not even given permission to protest. So, if you don't even give permission to protest, then how will they protest? But then people said that, well, a government against which you are raising your voice in a way. You go there and say that since they didn't give permission for the protest, you won't protest anymore; it's better if you just stay home instead. Don't you think these are extraordinary times? These are not normal times. Definitely, this is an extraordinary time. And you will have to take extraordinary steps as well. I won't go that far. Hmm. Because there are many kinds of extraordinary steps. I, I am speaking only within the constitutional framework. Yes, when the judges were superseded, and AN Ray was made Chief Justice of India by superseding three judges. By Mrs. Gandhi, Palkhivala gave a speech at that time; he said—I don't recall the year, '73 or whatever it was—that it is as important as the year 1947. 1947 marked the end of the struggle to win freedom, and 1973, or whatever it was......will mark the beginning of the struggle to preserve that freedom. So, we are at a time when we have to preserve the......freedom that we achieved. And the other thing is that you take an oath; every judge takes an oath, particularly in the High Court or Supreme Court. Beside everything else, what you swear to is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. This protection, defending, and preservation of the Constitution is not against some outsider. No one will come from the outside to do that. It will be done by those who hold power in this system. And this is exactly what you are supposed to protect. That is why it was said that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be changed. That is preserving it. If there is an assault, please defend it. If needed, protect it. All three words are in there. So, these judges, do they not understand? Where is this happening? Hmm. And if...Like Dipankar Datta, they threw eggs at him. At Mahua Moitra. Yes, so they say...You, yes...I mean, has your mind rotted? What has happened? The question is whether this should happen in a society. Hmm. If it shouldn't happen, then today you are in that chair, you give your order; why are you talking from here and there? Hmm. Similarly, when Rahul Gandhi spoke about Savarkar, they said he shouldn't have said that, those were great men, freedom fighters; now, as for his own...But it was accepted. Hmm. That he had apologized. Yes, he apologized. Should they resign only after leaving that post and join a party, or if they contest elections on that party's symbol, or if they attend RSS branches or RSS programs and are seen expressing different kinds of views in those seminars, then don't you think that when the same judge sits on the judge's chair, or the same lawyer fights someone's case, they would defend them according to their ideology? I place lawyers on a different ground. Okay. Maybe I am wrong. Because when we were in the Bar, if we looked around, there isn't a single political party whose members are not in the Bar. Hmm, hmm. Everyone laughs and jokes together in the office. Everything goes on, and their respective party work also happens there. RSS used to be there too. Although, it didn't have that much influence. Hmm. But it was there, and people from the RSS were also there. But you would obviously put judges in a different category. We cannot put judges in the lawyer's category, can we? A lawyer is free. Today you are on behalf of Congress. You are a lawyer. Tomorrow you could be on behalf of the BJP. In fact, half an hour later, in another case, this case is in favor of Congress. Another case came up. You might be against Congress too. It's possible, a lawyer's position can be like that. There is no such issue, and it should be like that too. Then, Justice Ansari, what should be the case? Now, we saw that the four judges, including that judge who is currently Ranjan Gogoi, who, as is evident, later became a Rajya Sabha MP. Four judges held a press conference at the Press Club, and there was a huge uproar in the country that look, this is the state of the judiciary after Narendra Modi came to power, that these judges are forced to sit here and hold a press conference, and they are raising questions. And after that, we saw some of those very judges doing something completely different. So, we saw that picture, and now we are seeing the current picture, regarding our current CJI Justice Surya Kant too, people have very different kinds of opinions, that there are corruption cases against him, I am not validating that, but people have said such things about him. My question to you is, when all this is happening, when it feels like the judiciary is also appearing to be divided into two parts. There are those who seem to be delivering judgments in the light of the law and the justice that should be served. But there are some who are denying justice and are not giving the kinds of verdicts they should be giving. It clearly seems that they are giving such verdicts out of fear, influence, or perhaps because of their own ideology. Don't you think that those justice-loving judges who feel that this is wrong...This is something that breaks the country. You are not standing with those who look at you with hope. So they should come together. They should do something. How long will those who are powerful sit and watch this spectacle? No, I agree with what you are saying. And it's not like those judges don't think about it. They think about it too. Many among them, like Muralidhar. Justice Lokur. Madan Lokur, he is also one of the very fine judges. Some Supreme Court judges have also started speaking up now. Hmm. I mean, you are also one of them. The way you speak so openly, people look at you with hope too, that when something like this happens, there is an expectation that you will speak up, and that is why you—My take is, if not now, then when? Exactly. We are going through such bad times that if we don't speak up now, then when will we? And this society has given us so much, this system has given us so much, and how can we watch this same system being ruined today? And this is what real patriotism is. People like you, or people like us, can be labeled anti-national because we are questioning the power. Questioning the power is now, in a way, used to grant you a certificate of your nationalism. But I feel the real patriots are those who...Are raising their voices against a system that is being corrupted, completely altered, and allowed to rot. Absolutely. Because if we look across the world, all our standards and indices—whether it's press freedom or any of our democracy indices—if we find ourselves standing at the lowest point, how concerning should that be for a country? A lot. Just look at this, the NHRC has moved from category A to category B. Hmm. Isn't this a matter of shame for India? India's judiciary was considered a very robust judiciary all over the world. Yes. No one would say that India's judiciary is weak, there could be aberrations. Like the supersession in '73. Fine, but even in that, you won't see N. Ray, who was made Chief Justice, or any judgment of his that you still hear about which was in Indira Gandhi's favor; that doesn't really come up. That he left all the law aside and kept passing such judgments. Yes. It doesn't come up even today. And look, during the Emergency, a worse time than that could not have come. In that, Indira Gandhi brought in a constitutional amendment according to which the election to the office of the Prime Minister and Speaker of Parliament will not be called in question in any court of law. This was a constitutional provision, obviously to save her own election; the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, even during that time, in the Emergency. Yes. The relief they gave her in the election happened in the election petition. In which they said no, this is wrong, and it is. Look, that case was such that the judge who gave it should also be praised. Those who struck down that judgment should also be praised. Because, as it was, there were only one or two grounds, or perhaps three, but the stage they set was very imposing. In today's times, there are much bigger ones. That was very imposing. So people would feel that, man, the Prime Minister is very powerful. Because of this, the election was affected. Yes, and now you see. Now you see how, from hoardings to everything, it's all an event. It is as if a king has come to address his subjects, and the way the Model Code of Conduct is shredded to pieces. Whatever is done. If the country's Prime Minister has over 100 hate speeches against his name, that he too has given such speeches against a specific community. The 2019 and 2024 elections will perhaps be considered the most communal elections, where the Prime Minister is directly saying that they will take away your daughter. They will untie and take away your buffalo. They will take away your mangalsutra. They will snatch your land away from you. If the Prime Minister talks in terms of "us" and "them." If the Chief Minister talks in terms of "us" and "them," talks about 80/20, talks about identifying people by their clothes, then I don't know if I am perhaps putting too much hope or too much burden on the judiciary, or if people are also perhaps putting too much hope or burden on the judiciary. It should be that way too. It should be. You think so? Yes. Yes, absolutely, why shouldn't it be? Yes. People should have faith in the judiciary and should also expect to receive justice from here. Yes. The judiciary should not be afraid. And by openly holding 'Dharam Sansads'. Earlier, when there were judges before. They had that. I will remain faithful and owe allegiance to the King of England, Emperor of India, because the King of England was the Emperor of India. His heirs and successors; even after that, we don't say that this judge did not honor his oath. Even though they took it for the King, they still delivered justice. Yes. Because the King's command itself was that you must deliver justice. Today you have been given so much power. The writ power is the King's. In which you have no limitations. The limitations are those that you impose upon yourself. Today, the judiciary's claim in writ petitions that "we don't have this power" is something the judiciary itself decided, that we will not exercise this power. No one comes from the outside to tell you that. And even then, you are unable to provide it to the people. Justice is a matter of great surprise. I mean, getting justice has become such that, as you rightly said, registering an FIR, which is the most basic thing, has become something you have to fight a battle for. The Leader of Opposition has to go and sit on a protest. Apart from this, you see that in many cases, getting an FIR registered feels like fighting a war. As if once your FIR is registered, it's like some great miracle has happened. I mean, an FIR is just the first step. After that, the process begins, and then you find out whether they will be arrested or not, whether justice will be done or not; even that is not happening. My last question to you, Iqbal Sahab, is that we are openly seeing that these 'Dharam Sansads' are being organized. In a place like Delhi, in the capital; this is not happening in some remote area, but in the country's capital, right in the hub, just a short distance from the Parliament, these 'Dharam Sansads' are being held, where open calls for the genocide of Muslims are being made. Talk of picking up weapons is happening, that you should pick up weapons against them and become Durga and Kali. All sorts of such things, that you should economically boycott them. Do not buy any goods from them. All these things are being said openly. From Gandhi to Maulana Azad, everyone is openly being abused as well. Talk of a Hindu nation is done openly and, in a formal way, a I would say a blueprint is presented as to what it would be like if a Hindu nation were formed, what its constitution would be like, or how it would be? All of that is presented. It is brought into TV debates, highly romanticized, glorified, and then asked: What will your Hindu nation be like? What will be the rights of Muslims in it? How do you see it? Then why are the courts sitting with their eyes closed? Again and again, I want to ask this. This is a direct challenge to the Constitution, that you are talking about a Hindu nation. And yet, even after that, nothing happens. Why? No, I would differ slightly on that. Okay. Because the Constitution itself gives you this liberty. That you can do that. Yes, why can't you? It is your imagination, you may think that mine should be like this; that freedom is also available, that is the beauty of the Constitution. Does it give you this privilege that you wouldn't ordinarily get? Because you are living in a democracy. That is why a Muslim can also think that our Islamic state would be of this type. I differ a little on that. You differ? Okay, okay. But if that But if it is going beyond that Hmm. Then the court must speak up. Hmm. As far as discussion and policy-making etc. are concerned, it is fine. Okay. But when you start interfering with the constitutional process of the country, whether it is in respect to the executive, judiciary, or legislature, then the court must speak up. You wouldn't go about doing this as a parliamentarian to create a Hindu nation, right? That would be wrong. But when you are not in power, you are not an MP, nothing at all, not the Prime Minister. You are not a minister. You are just presenting an idea. Right? If your country wills it, they will have it. Lastly, to the citizens who are a bit hopeless, or to those who feel that hopelessness has become their destiny. What would you like to say to them? You have been a Chief Justice of a High Court. Should they still have faith and trust in the judiciary, and with how much conviction can you say this? That is a very difficult question. I would certainly like to, and I would like to tell them as well. That keep faith in the courts. This is also a phase. This too shall pass. Hmm, hmm. And we will treat this as a bad chapter in the history of this country. And move forward. I feel this way, and I am a bit optimistic in this regard. I am going to tell you a reality, not just a story. Yes, absolutely. It may not have anything to do with the intro. It depends on you, whatever you want to do. I had a friend, Shanik Singhvi, who passed away. He was a very popular and very effective lawyer in the Calcutta High Court. When we were in college, he was with me, So my life was a bit...because I...I lost my parents at a very young age. At a very young age means it was just one month into practice, when my brother died. And a year thereafter my father also died. So I was coming home late, sleeping late, a bit of what young boys do, so One day he asked me, his father's name was Sohan Raj Singh Jain, he asked, "Iqbal, do you pray Namaz?" So I could not lie to him. I said no, I pray sometimes. He said, "You should pray regularly." Just think. A Jain is saying this to a Muslim. Then after a while he said, "Hey, have you started praying Namaz?" I said no, old man, I haven't. He reminded me again. It happened a third time. Hmm. So he told me, "Look, you should pray the morning Namaz; if you shower and pray, your day will go by very quickly.""And it will bring discipline to your life." And it is such that, whether I pray other Namaz or not, I definitely pray the morning Namaz. And I remember him with great affection because he changed my life completely. Wow. This was India. How beautiful. How...Today, we cannot even imagine it. You have shared a very beautiful thing here. It is obvious that you have seen that India. You have lived it, and when that India is being trampled underfoot right in front of your eyes, how painful it is. Merely...How painful it is that you have to impose your identity every single time. Meaning, you are a Chief Justice. You are just a Chief Justice. I am a journalist. I am just a journalist. Why do I need to keep saying this, and why am I constantly told that I am a Muslim journalist or you are a Muslim judge? With my name, obviously everyone will know what this is. But do you feel that all these things have now become very much "on the face" or very obvious, that whatever you say or do, everything has started to revolve around your identity? That's right. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. It was wonderful to have you on our podcast. And I am sure our audience got a great chance to learn and hear a lot from you. So thank you so much for your time. Thank you.