From Yakub Memon to Umar Khalid: When ‘justice’ fails to fit the religious narrative of the Leftist-Islamist nexus

‘धर्मेण राज्यं धार्यते’ means that the state/government is governed by Dharma. This philosophy recurs frequently in the Mahabharata, especially in the Shanti Parva and Anushasana Parva. The concept of Rajdharma mentioned in the Manusmriti also bears a similar essence. The principles laid down by Kautilya regarding the governance of the state and justice follow the same philosophy.

In the Shanti Parva, Bhishma Pitamah tells Yudhishthira that a king’s first duty is justice, and that the foundation of justice is Dharma, not public sentiment. Indian tradition has always held that a state is governed by Dharma, not sentiment. Dharma incorporates justice, rules, and decorum.

Even in modern times, the same philosophy underpins the judicial system. The greatest strength of the Indian judicial system is that it is neither driven by individuals nor guided by mobs. However, an organised ideological gang has consistently attempted to get the judiciary bogged down by a mobocracy where empathy replaces law, religious identity replaces evidence, and narrative becomes decisive in delivering justice.

Whenever an Islamic terrorist, leftist thinker, or so-called ‘minority icon’ doesn’t receive the verdict they want, the Islamo-left alliance resorts to pressure tactics to bend the judicial system. Clamours of ‘danger to the Constitution,’ ‘death of Human rights,’ and ‘the judiciary succumbing to fascism,’ grow louder and noisier.

The pattern that has been repeated over the past few years, from Yakub Memon to Umar Khalid. From the mainstream media to left-liberal thinkers and appeasing politicians, everyone unanimously puts the judiciary in the dock. The question is no longer what the law says, but what the ‘sentiment of a religious mob’ wants.

Umar Khalid-Sharjeel Imam: Religious identity is everything

Both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are facing serious charges of divisive speeches, inciting violence, and engaging in anti-national conspiracies. The courts are examining the evidence and following due process. But this is unacceptable to the left-liberal cabal. For them, bail is not a legal remedy, but an ideological right. When bail is denied, the court is termed as ‘insensitive.’

The entire discussion overlooks the fundamental truth that emotions do not govern the law. The question of bail is determined by the gravity of the charges, the evidence, the role of the accused, and the status of the investigation. Yet, every time courts deliver judgments in accordance with the law in such cases, a concerted narrative of justice being ‘insensitive’ begins to emerge.

However, the riot conspirators did not show the so-called ‘sensitivity’ towards the victims of the anti-Hindu riots in Delhi in 2020. The media that is showering pity on the riot accused who were denied bail did not appear as aggressive for the victims of violence, arson, and murder then.

Will the definition of sensitivity be decided based on religious identity?

Uproar over Kuldeep Sengar’s bail

Interestingly, the same Islamo-left gang that created an uproar when Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied legal relief was wailing when the Delhi High Court granted bail to Kuldeep Sengar. In this case, too, the problem wasn’t the legal conditions of bail, but the fact that the court did not deliver a decision that suited the mob’s demands. The message was clear: either decide according to their standard of ‘morality’ or be ready to be labelled as ‘insensitive.’

This double standard is no coincidence. On the one hand, if the accused belongs to a certain ideology or religious identity, bail becomes a ‘human right.’ On the other hand, if the accused falls outside that identity, the bail is declared a ‘travesty of justice.’ In reality, this is not justice, but identity-based morality. Justice (the legal remedy of bail) is portrayed as questionable because of the accused’s identity (Hindu).

Yakub Memon: Religious identity, not terror charges, is important

The night of July 30, 2015, is etched in the history of Indian judicial history. Yakub Memon, the terrorist convicted in the Mumbai bombings, underwent a proper legal trial. Years of hearings, appeals, and reconsiderations—everything was done in accordance with the law. Yet, the rush to open the Supreme Court in the wee hours that day appeared like some judicial emergency had come up. Who showed up? The same Islamo-left gang—the same lawyers, the same activists, the same TV faces. The sentiments were the same—pity for the terrorist (with a particular religious identity), and silence for the victims.

The question here wasn’t about the hanging of the terror convict. The question was whether the punishment for terrorism would also be determined based on identity?

Is being a Muslim an immunity against the law of the land?

Karthigai Deepam: Legitimising Hindu faith is a crime

There were demands of impeachment against Justice Swaminathan, who delivered the verdict on Tamil Nadu’s Karthigai Deepam festival. The reason? The decision favoured Hindu tradition. The message was clear – if you sit in court and legitimise Hindu faith, your position will be destabilised.

Ram Mandir, Justice Gogoi and Justice Chandrachud

Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was targeted after delivering the historic Ram Temple verdict. Every decision, every appointment, was linked to that verdict.

Moreover, after a photo of former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Ganesh Puja surfaced, a narrative was created, making it almost criminal for a judge to display his faith, and suggesting that the judiciary had surrendered to the government.

Are only those who are godless, traditionless and uprooted fit to be judges?

Muslim accusations and the shield of ‘sensitivity’

Pressure tactics against the Indian judiciary are not a new phenomenon. In numerous cases involving Islamic terrorism, whether they involve accused of banned organisations or incidents of riots and violence, the same old script comes into play. Arrests are labelled ‘harassment,’ chargesheets ‘political revenge,’ and trials ‘Islamophobia.’

The entire narrative is created and peddled by people who have spent years trying to establish that if the accused is Muslim, the law must be extra ‘sensitive,’ as if the law sees through a religious lens. The pressure isn’t limited to the media; it extends to the court environment, public discourse, and administrative decisions.

The pressure of ‘minority’ politics

It’s no secret that certain ideological groups have been imposing their narrative on the judiciary and administration. The term ‘minority’ is used as a shield to raise suspicion about every legal process. When an accused belongs to a particular ideological or religious identity, the criminal charge against him is viciously portrayed as ‘political dissent.’

These are the tactics used to pressure the judicial institutions. The courts are expected to look not at the law or evidence, but at the religious sentiments of the crowd and social media trends. The courts are expected not to make a legally valid decision, but to appease emotions.

This is not justice; this is appeasement

Silence on victims, prime time on the ‘feelings’ of the accused

The mainstream media also feeds this appeasement. A large part of the mainstream media passes its own judgment instead of asking questions. It presents court orders out of context and exerts moral pressure on judges. This is not journalism, but ideological activism. This is the same media that remains conspicuously silent on the suffering of victims, but devotes hours of prime time to the ‘feelings’ of the accused.

Mob narrative versus the process of justice

The mob wants quick results. Law takes time. The mob wants slogans. The law demands evidence. The mob seeks emotional satisfaction. Law seeks truth. This is why when courts don’t toe the line, they are labelled ‘anti-democratic.’

This is what the courts did in the cases of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. They followed the law, leaving aside the emotional cacophony. This is what makes the Islamo-Left alliance uncomfortable.

Vedic View: Justice not based on feelings

In the Indian Vedic tradition, justice was never subordinate to emotion. न धर्मात् परो धर्मः, meaning there is nothing above Dharma (justice). Manusmriti states, “When justice is destroyed, the people are destroyed. Neither the king nor the enemy, no one is spared.”

This is why, in Indian tradition, a judge is expected to be free from any pressure, beyond fear, and not devoid of faith, but rather devoted to Dharma (justice). Justice does not mean compassion, but rather a decision in accordance with Dharma (justice). Compassion, as a characteristic, is meant for the individuals, not for the judicial system. This is the fundamental distinction, which is being deliberately erased in today’s discourse.

A society that surrenders justice to emotional blackmail ultimately betrays its victims. The Vedic tradition has taught us that the Dharma of justice transcends coercion/identity.

To preserve justice, it must be free from sentiment. When courts become afraid of the mob, anarchy, and not democracy, will emerge.

The same anarchy of ‘सर तन से जुदा’ (Islamic calls for beheading) that we see on the streets today.

(This article is a translation of the original article published on OpIndia Hindi.)