Author: J.G. Arora
Publication: Organiser
Date: January 24, 2005
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=61&page=22
Media's one-sided approach towards
Shan-karacharya's case has pained Hindu society.
Though it is for the courts to determine
whether Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati, the 69th Peethadhipati
of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Kanchipuram is guilty or innocent, and
though everyone is presumed to be innocent till found guilty, a section
of the media has already pronounced him guilty.
A section of the print and electronic
media is touting the maxim of 'equality before law' to support its contention
that no special consideration be shown to the Kanchi seer.
The said legal dictum of 'equality
before law' is laudable and certainly deserves to be applied in Jayendra
Saraswati's case as well.
Nevertheless, though as per the
law of the land, Jayendra Saraswati is not entitled to any special treatment;
it is equally imperative that he is not denied the rights he is entitled
to as a citizen of this country since 'equality before law' is the first
Fundamental Right as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India which
stipulates that, "The State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law, or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."
Safeguards for Individual Liberty
In order to protect an individual
against any misuse of its powers by the State, the law of the land has
provided enough safeguards.
As per Article 20 (3) of the Constitution
of India, "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself."
And as per Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, "No confession made to a police officer shall be proved
as against a person accused of any offence."
Though the confession made before
the police officer is not admissible as evidence before the court, most
of the media prominently declared that Jayendra Saraswati had 'confessed'
his crime during interrogation by the police authorities.
Media's 'Blitzkrieg'
The media has treated Jayendra Saraswati's,
the Shankracharya's, arrest as a unique opportunity to launch a full-fledged
attack to denigrate and malign him and the hallowed institution he represents,
as also other Hindu institutions.
In a democracy, the media, i.e.
the 'fourth estate' is supposed to function as the guardian of individual
liberty against the misuse, if any, of the State might. But in Shankaracharya's
case, a section of media seems to have taken over the role of the prosecution
projecting him and Kanchipuram Peetham in a negative light, and forgetting
that as per the law of the land, no 'accused' is a 'criminal' till convicted
by a court of law. The sad fact is that to give its version in the matter,
Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Kanchipuram had to issue a paid advertisement
in various publications showing the media's one-sided approach on the issue.
Media's partisan approach has hurt
Hindu feelings. Apart from pursuing its anti-Hindu agenda, the said media
is feeding the nation with falsehood and misinformation about Kanchipuram
Peetham, the hallowed institution of such a long and distinguished standing.
Conviction and Convenience
Concept of 'equality before law'
should be a matter of conviction, and not a matter of convenience. Nevertheless,
the said media's sanctimonious concern for 'equality before law' and 'rule
of law' is a matter of convenience, and keeps on changing with the changes
in individuals involved.
As discussed below, the media's
concern for 'equality before law' is fake and is expressed only on a selective
basis.
During the eighties of the last
century, over one thousand Hindus were killed by the terrorists in Kashmir
forcing terrorised Hindus to flee from Kashmir. Both print and electronic
media have been silent over this national disaster. Where is the 'equality
before law' for Kashmiri Hindus who have faced genocide in Kashmir, and
have been evicted from Kashmir to become refugees in their own country?
And the same media as also the human rights organisations are silent about
these murders as also about the legal rights of Kashmiri Hindus.
And the same media created no commotion
when to address Muslim uproar over the Supreme Court's judgement reported
as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (All India Reporter, 1985, Supreme
Court page 945), the then Congress government at the Centre passed the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 in order to nullify
the Supreme Court's said judgement.
Why not the 'Uniform Civil Code'?
These very angels of 'equality before
law' do not support the long pending constitutional direction contained
in Article 44 to formulate the 'uniform civil code' which will boost the
doctrine of 'equality before law'.
Need for enactment of the uniform
civil code has repeatedly been emphasised by the Supreme Court vide a number
of its judgements including the judgements reported as Mohd. Ahmed Khan
v. Shah Bano Begum, Smt. Sarla Mudgal, president, Kalyani and others v.
Union of India and others (All India Reporter, 1995, Supreme Court page
1531) and John Vallamattom and another v. Union of India (All India Reporter,
2003 Supreme Court, page 2902).
And yet the same media would not
write or utter even a word in favour of uniform civil code though its enactment
would indisputably foster the cause of 'equality before law'.
And these custodians of 'equality
before law', and 'rule of law' are equally silent over illegal infiltration
of crores of Bangladeshis into India threatening the creation of one more
Islamic country on Indian soil. And they have responded to this menace
of perilous demographic invasion with denial, deception and negation.
Yes, as per the sublime concept
of 'equality before law', everyone is equal before law, and therefore,
Jayendra Saraswati is not entitled to any special or privileged treatment.
But it is equally vital that rule of law prevails and the Kanchi seer is
allowed all the fundamental and human rights any other citizen of this
country is entitled to.
Or is it that for some sections
in India, only the terrorists, anti-national elements and Bangladeshi infiltrators
are entitled to fundamental and human rights?
(The author is Chief Commissioner
of Income Tax (Retd.) and can be contacted at jgarora@vsnl.net
