Days after the Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to stop Bageshwar Dham’s religious event, habitual ‘caste baiters’ sought to exploit the opportunity to target Justice Vivek Agarwal.
In a tweet on Thursday (May 25), The Print columnist Dilip Mandal took to Twitter to suggest that the Judge who dismissed the PIL in the Bageshwar Dham case is prejudiced against Adivasis.
“The collegium judge told the counsel for the tribals – “You people have thought that you will collect huge TRPs by doing bad things… If the judge had said about a lawyer, he would have used the word ‘tum’. Who was this ‘tum log (you people)‘ he was referring to?
It must be mentioned that Dilip Mandal is known for raking up unnecessary and trivial issues and falsely alleging caste discrimination.
Advocate Nitin Meshram, infamous for helping child rapist Firoz justify his action, also hopped on the bandwagon of ‘caste baiting’ and vowed to raise the matter with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud. “I am complaining about this judge to Chandrachud,” he said.
Both Dilip Mandal and Nitin Meshram are similar to the characters of ‘Tweedledum’ and ‘Tweedledee’ when it comes to caste-baiting.
It must be mentioned that ‘Tweedledum’ and ‘Tweedledee’ are fictional characters from Lewis Carroll’s famous novel “Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.”
Tweedledum and Tweedledee are a pair of identical twin brothers who are constantly engaged in nonsensical arguments and disagreements. They have since become iconic characters in popular culture and are often depicted as two foolish individuals who mirror each other’s behaviour.
Their names have even been adopted as a metaphor for two people who are so similar that they are virtually indistinguishable.
The Background of the Controversy
On May 22 this year, the Jabalpur Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the second Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed to stop Bageshwar Dham’s religious event in the State.
The event was scheduled for May 23 and May 24 at Rani Durgavati Mahavidyalay Ground, village Linga in Paraswada of district Balaghat, Madhya Pradesh.
During the hearing, Justice Vivek Agarwal warned the advocate of contempt of court if he continued to argue with the bench inappropriately. The advocate appearing for the “Tribal” organisation claimed that organising such an event would hurt the religious sentiments of the tribals.
When Justice Vivek Agarwal asked him to explain the traditions of the ‘Bada Dev Bhagwan Sthal’ (Religious place of Tribals) of the area and how tribals’ sentiments would be hurt. The advocate read a paragraph from the petition that was vague with no detailed information on the local traditions.
Justice Vivek interrupted the advocate and explained his question in Hindi and English so that the counsel could understand. Confused by the question, the advocate could not provide any detail of the primitive traditions and said they do not have a problem if the event was held at another place.
Justice Vivek said, “You are not answering my question. Who are you to decide where the event will take place and where it cannot take place?” The advocate got agitated and said, “I am trying to explain it through Constitution but you are not listening to me.” Justice Vivek warned him to talk properly. Advocate said, “You are not listening to me. ‘Kuch bhi bole ja rahe hain’ (You are saying whatever you want)” to the judge.
Justice Vivek did not take the advocate’s tone lightly and asked to issue a contempt notice against him. The advocate continued to speak inappropriately and said, “I am trying to mention the provisions under Article 51 but you are not ready to listen.” He further asked the judge to listen to his argument first.
Justice Vivek again warned him of contempt if he continued to speak to the bench in an appropriate manner after which the advocate apologised. The advocate’s associate came and asked him to calm down. Justice Vivek, who was visibly angry at the way the advocate behaved, said, “First answer my questions then we will read the constitution. Don’t try to be over-smart. If you try to argue inappropriately, I will send you directly to jail from here.
The part of the court proceeding that Tweedledee and Tweedledum took offence to was the following:
Justice Agarwal is seen telling Udhe in Hindi,
“Tum logo ne soch liya hai ki badtameezi karke tum jo hai, apne aap ke liye bohot badi TRP collect karloge? (You people think that by misbehaving you will garner TRPs for yourself?).”
Udhe then mumbles an apology, which prompts the judge to say,
“You should be sorry.”
Justice Agarwal then again says in Hindi,
“Tum logon ko ye sikhake bheja jaata hai ki badtameezi karo? (Are you people tutored and sent to misbehave?)”
They alleged that “tum log” essentially alluded to the caste of the lawyer, however, that is not true. If not actually watching the proceedings, once would realise that the judge and the lawyer had got into an argument much before these comments were made because of the repeated misbehaviour of the lawyer. The lawyer constantly claimed that the event would hurt the Adivasi religious feelings and the judge kept asking him to substantiate his comment.
Another lawyer is then seen asking Udhe to calm down and it is then that Udhe mumbles his apology and Justice Agarwal makes the “tum log” comment.
It is evident that the Judge, when he said “tum log”, was alluding to lawyers who file sponsored PILs and motivated cases and his comment had nothing to do with caste or the adivasi identity.
