Appointment of a new CJI and skepticism about expecting any meaningful change

 

• Role of CJI and BLOs in Electoral Process and Citizenship Verification

  • Discussing the appointment of a new Chief Justice of India (CJI) and expresses skepticism about expecting any meaningful change from this.
  • The previous CJI, Justices Suryakant and Bagchi, handled the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) hearings related to Bihar with a strong stance against the Election Commission.
  • Current petitions from states like West Bengal and Tamil Nadu challenge similar SIR processes.
  • A critical focus is on the role of Booth Level Officers (BLOs), who are essentially deputed government workers (similar to anganwadi workers) tasked with distributing, collecting, and verifying voter registration forms.
  • The contention arises around whether BLOs have the authority to determine citizenship, which is officially the domain of the Home Ministry, not the Election Commission.
  • Government and Election Commission lawyers argue the Election Commission does have the authority to verify citizenship for voter registration since only Indian citizens can vote under the Constitution.
  • The Constitution clearly states sovereignty belongs to “the people of India,” underscoring that non-citizens (Bangladeshis, Rohingyas, Afghans, Pakistanis) should not influence India’s governance.

•  Political and Legal Challenges to SSR and BLOs

  • Lawyers like Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan, described as left-leaning and global citizen advocates, oppose the SIR and BLO process, focusing on individual rights over national interest.
  • They allegedly vilify BLOs, who perform critical ground-level electoral functions, attempting to discredit them and derail the SIR process.
  • This opposition is linked with political parties and protests, such as those led by Mamata Banerjee and Jharkhand ministers, who have made inflammatory remarks about BLOs.
  • The Supreme Court’s important bench, including the new CGI, is hearing these petitions despite the enormous backlog of cases, drawing criticism for wasting judicial time.
  • Previously, the Supreme Court had indicated nationwide SIR implementation would proceed without objections, but new petitions with rephrased arguments by the same lawyer group have created confusion.

• Illegal Immigration and Judiciary’s Role in Protecting Intruders

  • The video estimates there are approximately 50 million illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, Rohingya, and Pakistan living in India.
  • State governments mostly fail to act against these infiltrators due to political pressures; any action taken by nationalist governments is accused of targeting Muslims.
  • The judiciary, invoking natural laws, human rights, and individual dignity, is portrayed as protecting illegal immigrants, often blocking deportations.
  • Reference is made to “Operation Sindur,” when hundreds of Bangladeshis were deported but faced legal challenges led by Prashant Bhushan.
  • Indian law supports deportation of illegal immigrants with no legal rights or respect, distinguishing between legal residents and illegal infiltrators.
  • The speaker contrasts this with international incidents like the deportation of illegal Indian immigrants from the U.S., defended by the government.
  • Illegal immigrants are criminals and must be deported to protect national interests, but left-leaning lawyers receive significant foreign funding to defend them.

• Judicial Immunity and Criticism of High Courts and Supreme Court

  • There is strong criticism of the judiciary’s indulgence in hearing petitions filed by well-funded lawyers with questionable motives despite a massive backlog of cases.
  • The judiciary is accused of ignoring the will of the government and parliament, effectively shielding judges from criminal prosecution.
  • Citing precedent, the video claims that even if judges commit grave crimes, the government cannot file FIRs against them without the Chief Justice’s permission.
  • Examples include the case of Yashwant Verma, where large-scale corruption allegations did not lead to an FIR due to judicial immunity.
  • There is concern that the new CGI, Justice Suryakant, will continue this trend of shielding judges and obstructing accountability.
  • The judiciary is portrayed as a self-protective institution, impervious to government action, making public awareness and pressure the only way to reform it.

• Call for Public Awareness and Reform of Judicial Appointment System

  • It is emphasized that only the Indian public, as sovereign under the Constitution, can demand accountability and reform in the judiciary.
  • The judiciary allegedly ignores elected representatives and prioritizes the interests of a powerful legal elite.
  • The CGI and other senior judges often speak about upholding the Constitution and democracy but fail to practice transparency or accountability.
  • The “Collegium system” of judicial appointments is strongly criticized as unconstitutional, nepotistic, and lacking transparency.
  • I argue if the collegium system is so effective, it should be applied uniformly across all government appointments, which it is not.
  • There is a call to abolish the collegium system and restore the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to ensure transparency and curb judicial excesses.
  • The judiciary’s discretionary freedom is seen as detrimental, leading to massive case backlogs (5 crore cases pending in India, 80,000 in Supreme Court, 60 lakh in High Courts).
  • Recent judicial decisions have shown increased courage influenced by public sentiment favoring nationalism and unity.

• Final Thoughts on SIR, Judiciary’s Bias, and Public Responsibility

  • The SIR case remains unresolved, with repeated court hearings despite earlier dismissals, indicating no clear rules or justice principles are being followed.
  • Imported judicial doctrines are criticized for protecting criminals and undermining national interest.
  • It is concluded by reiterating that the judiciary is failing the public by prioritizing lawyers’ interests and judicial independence over justice and efficiency.
  • I appeals to the public to unite, challenge judicial overreach, and support movements like “Abolish Collegium, Save India” and “Bring Back NJAC.”
  • Only through collective public pressure can the judiciary be compelled to reform and uphold the Constitution and democracy.