Why Justice Chandrachud is wrong about 'safety valves'

Justice Chandrachudh of the Supreme Court has given a speech which is either meaningless or mischievous. In that it has no legal force, it is meaningless. But, by showing a senior member of the Judiciary to be as stupid as shit, it is mischievous.

Consider the following-

“A legitimate government committed to deliberate dialogue does not seek to restrict political contestation but welcomes it…

This is nonsense. If a government is legitimate then it is committed to rejecting 'deliberate dialogue' on at least one issue- viz. its own legitimacy. To do so would mean it had only provisional, de facto, legitimacy- i.e. none at all from the de jure point of view. But the word legitimacy is a de jure, not a de facto, concept.

Political contestation must be restricted by a legitimate government. Otherwise, it will cease to govern anything.

'A state committed to the rule of law ensures that the state apparatus is not employed to curb legitimate and peaceful protest but to create spaces conducive for deliberation,”

This is false. Protest may be legitimate and peaceful but it may be against the national interest. That is why the Constitution has given ample power to the Executive to suppress such types of protest. By contrast, there is no duty to 'create spaces conducive for deliberation'. Even if Parliament itself turns into a bear-garden, the Government has no duty to improve its conduct and make it 'conducive for deliberation'. Indeed, any such a move would breach Parliamentary privilege.

“Within the bounds of the law, liberal democracies ensure that their citizens enjoy the right to express their views in every conceivable manner, including the right to protest and express dissent against prevailing laws.'

But the Executive has ample room for manoeuver  in determining what the 'bounds of law' are.  India is not a 'Liberal Democracy'. I wish it were- but that's not the choice made by the Constituent Assembly or any later Legislature which has amended the Indian Constitution.  India is a Socialist, Secular, Democracy. From the First Amendment onward, it was clear that it had chosen to reject Liberalism.

There is no duty of any Government to ensure that everybody can enjoy their right to auto-fellation by providing them instruction in Yoga such that they are able to bend their backs sufficiently to be able to suck themselves off. Justice Chandrachud may feel differently. He may entertain a PIL requiring the Government to help citizens attain sufficiently flexible spines to be able to fellate themselves. But, even if he becomes Chief Justice, he will have no power to bring about this consummation devoutly to be desired.

'The blanket labelling of such dissent as ‘anti-national’ or ‘anti-democratic’ strikes at the heart of our commitment to the protection of constitutional values and the promotion of deliberative democracy,”

It is perfectly legal for anyone, including a member of the Government, to say that she thinks certain actions are good for the nation while others are anti-national. India does not have an explicit 'doctrine of political question' but it is a fact that the Supreme Court has never posed any significant hurdle to any action of the Government.

There are no immutable 'constitutional values' because the Constitution can be easily amended. It was the Supreme Court which, very foolishly, directed the Nationality Register in Assam the completion of which has precipitated the current panic among Muslims.

He further emphasised that “the commitment to civil liberty flows directly from the manner in which the State treats dissent”.

Commitments flow directly from values and beliefs. What this cretin means is 'commitment to civil liberty' is linked to how the State treats dissent.  However, since dissent can undermine the civil liberties of citizens- indeed it can undermine economic development and national security- the State must suppress some types of dissent.

He also termed dissent as the “safety valve of democracy” and said that silencing of dissent and the generation of fear in the minds of people go beyond the violation of personal liberty and a commitment to constitutional values.

 Democracy is not a pressure cooker. It does not have a 'safety valve'. Chandrachud mentioned this 'safety valve' theory a couple of years ago, but his was a dissenting view. In other words, as matters stand, the Supreme Court denies that the Indian Constitution has any such feature.

Despotic governments may permit mass protests from time to time as a 'safety valve'. The British Raj certainly did so. They'd wait for a protest movement to run out of steam and then jail everybody.

Democracy is about running the country in a manner such that the majority are better off. Some Democracies may wish to guarantee equal treatment to Minorities because it benefits the majority. But there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. The Indian Constitution can be changed by a large enough Legislative majority. It is unitary in nature and its First Amendment goes in the opposite direction to the US First Amendment.

The Bench can say whatever it pleases. But it can be reconstituted. Because Chief Justices are dependent on the Government for post-retirement perks and sinecures, it is not independent. Furthermore, the Indian legal profession as well as the Judiciary is of poor quality. Many lawyers are criminals. Most judges are corrupt, casteist and poorly educated. Just recently, some Supreme Court Judges have suggested that Justice Loya's death was suspicious. In other words, the man had been killed by his brother Judges because he was not corrupt. Sadly, no one has as yet suggested that Loya was raped before being murdered. This shows a lingering homophobia in judicial circles which Justice Chandrachud, in between securing Government help for potential auto-fellators, may well wish to investigate.

Justice Chandrachud, who was delivering a lecture on “The hues that make India: from plurality to pluralism”, also said that the true test of a democracy is its ability to ensure the creation and protection of spaces where every individual can voice their opinion without any fear of retribution.

What 'hue' makes India? Hinduism. Nothing else. But for it, the country will break up as Pakistan broke up.

Plurality describes the condition for getting elected and forming a Government in India. You have to get the most votes- not necessarily a majority. Pluralism means there is more than one source of authority. India does not have 'Pluralism'. It is Unitary. This Harvard educated Judge is either shite at English or else he is a virtue signalling cretin.

The true test of a democracy is if it is democratic. This is the case where the views and values of the majority prevails. This may involve the destruction of spaces where individuals can voice seditious opinions. Democracies often fail because they don't deliver outcomes desired by majorities. It is often forgotten that Kerensky was Democratically elected. But he dragged his feet on the two issues that mattered to Russians- land reform and ending the War.

In 1912, China had democratic elections with universal adult male franchise. But, like Kerensky, Sun Yat Sen fell because he could not deliver what the Chinese wanted- viz. the immediate killing of all possible usurpers and potential warlords.

Russia and China have survived- indeed, the latter has thrived. The vast majority of Chinese people support the regime. But, part of the reason for this is that it is not a democratic country. If it were, the regime would have an excuse for doing nothing while enriching various political dynasties.

‘Elected governments cannot claim monopoly over values’

Anybody can claim anything that is fundamentally meaningless. What an elected Government, under the Rule of Law, can't do is enforce a monopoly over values or beliefs.

However it must claim a monopoly over legitimate coercion and deciding the boundary between criticism and sedition. It may not wish to, or be able to, enforce this monopoly. But the claim must be made otherwise separatist or vigilante action has a defence in law. Since the Government has not claimed an exclusive right to legitimate coercive action, the natural right to self-defence and self-determination vests in the citizen.

Speaking at the event, Justice Chandrachud also stated the suppression of difference and silencing of popular or unpopular voices that offer alternate views is a great threat to pluralism in the country.

There is no pluralism- i.e. multiple sources of authority- in India. The Constitution is Unitary. It is not the case that burgeoning factionalism has ever been considered desirable, in the manner of Madison, precisely because the Indian Constitution was ab ovo Unitary and moved in the direction of strengthening the Center.

“Protecting dissent is but a reminder that while democratically elected governments offer us a legitimate tool for development and social coordination, they can never claim a monopoly over the values and identities that define our plural society.

Nonsense! Freedom of Expression means anyone can claim a monopoly over anything which doesn't matter in the slightest.

The employment of state machinery to curb dissent, instill fear and create a chilling atmosphere on free speech which violates the rule of law and detracts from the constitutional vision of a pluralist society…

Is either justiciable or it isn't. But Justice in India means slow costive shite. We know in advance that if the Government asks the Bench to bend, it will crawl. Chandrachud's father certainly crawled- first to Indira (unlike Justice Khanna) and then turned his coat for Janata sending Sanjay Gandhi to jail. Luckily that fellow died soon after Indira's return to power and so the Chief Justice did not come to a gristly end.

The destruction of spaces for questions and dissent destroys the basis of all growth — political, economic, cultural and social,” he said.

Which is why China lags behind India.

Chandrachud's father was a long serving Chief Justice. Like other dynasts, his brains appear to have turned to shit. I suppose he is already planning his post-retirement career. Clearly, since his ability to think and speak proper English has declined greatly during his years on the Bench, he will require a sinecure in some field where mental acuity is not a desiderata.