Dear Justice Joseph,

I hope you find the time to read this open letter since substantial time has passed and I am hoping you would have recuperated from your mirth over the calls for the genocide of Hindus and Brahmins.

Hindus in general have always had unbound faith in the Judiciary. This is not evidence of the independence of the Judiciary or a testament to how the Judiciary has dispensed justice to 80% of Bharat’s population, but a result of the very idea of ‘Nyaya’ that Hindus believe in and the imagery it invokes for them. When Hindus in general think about Nyaya (Justice, though the English word hardly does ‘justice’ to the concept of Nyaya), Hindus are often transported to their reading of the Bhagavad Gita, with images of Shree Krishna and the great warrior Arjun. The respect for the Judiciary and Judges essentially stems from the ingrained imagery of those meant to dispense Nyaya and restore balance in an ordered, cultured, just, Dharmic society.

One may call it the naivety of Hindus or the consequence of their Bhakti, but the respect for Judiciary stems from their Dharmic learnings and not necessarily the actions of the Court. Covering the Delhi Riots, I have pondered on the concept of Justice for a long time. What is Justice? It is said that Justice cannot be delivered but it should seem to have been delivered by the parties involved, which is to say that all parties must feel like they have received their rightful due when Nyaya is dispensed. In a complex society with varying moral standards, that is, of course, an illusion. In the Delhi Riots, the violence unleashed by the Muslim mob was seen as justifiable action by the conspirators of the violence because they believed they had enough reasons for mass action against Hindus. The Hindus, on the other hand, saw their violence and their genocidal rhetoric as an injustice and a sin, so to speak. In the end, the Muslim side would never believe that Justice was delivered to them unless the courts categorically lie and state that the riot, orchestrated for months by Islamists, was actually violence committed by the Hindus against Muslims.

For the real victims, the Hindus, justice would never be delivered even if the perpetrators of the violence are punished. A Hindu shop owner, whose shop was burnt down, will refuse to testify because he fears the Muslim mob, his neighbours, would come back for retribution if he did. He will forever burn in the fire of injustice, being incapable of restoring balance and having nobody to speak for his rights. The mother of Dilbar Negi would be left without her son, forever, with his murderers being given undue concessions by the judiciary simply because the Muslim side’s idea of justice is vastly different and institutions are wired to cater to adharmic moral standards. Even if Dilbar Negi and Ankit Sharma’s murderers are punished, those who incited violence for over 3 months, leading to the anti-Hindu riots that claimed their lives, would go unpunished. The Muslim journalists (their words, not mine), the activists (their claim, not mine), the former Judges who whitewashed the purpose of the violence, and assorted participants in the monstrosity would live and prosper. That is no justice.

Is Justice the ‘rule of law’ or does ‘justice’ have a more poetic disposition? Is ‘justice’ a long process where the written rule is followed to the letter, or is it the process to assign responsibility? Domitus Ulpian said ‘Justice is the constant and perpetual will to allot to every man his due’. That definition is perhaps one closest to what Dharmics believe and what the Bhagavad Gita teaches us. Every man gets his due. The fruit of one’s Karma and Dharma. Good or bad but just, nonetheless.

Yesterday, you heard a contempt plea filed in a bunch of petitions seeking directions to regulate hate speech in the country. You, sir, along with Justice BV Nagarathna made significant observations while hearing the contempt plea filed against the Maharashtra government for allegedly failing to control hate speeches by Hindu organisations despite orders of the apex court. The significance of the observations made by you and your brother Judge is apparent by the ire it has received from Hindus across the spectrum.

While I can’t possibly give you sermons on what the concept of Justice should be, the concept of Nyaya dictates that one is impartial, but is true in drawing the line between right and wrong and having drawn that line, has the courage to punish those in the wrong. While that is true, those who sit in authority dispensing ‘justice’ should, at least, start from a point of honest and impartial evaluation.

Justice Joseph, I would humbly ask if you have questioned yourself and wondered if you dispensed your Dharma truthfully and started from a place of genuine inquiry rather than tainted prejudice.

At the very outset, dare I say, you pronounced your judgement, or at least, hinted at what your judgement would be eventually. The derision and the condescension that the Hindu Samaj counsel had to withstand goes against the general moral fibre of the Judiciary and the principles that Judges claim to espouse.

A counsel: I appear for Hindu samaj

Justice Joseph: Oh very good. You are the one doing this in Maharashtra

Counsel: we are across India. #SupremeCourt

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) March 29, 2023

When the counsel said his plea was in the larger interest of Hindus, he was immediately a recipient of your ire. “So you are before us now and you are holding the rallies. Do you have right to break the law? Can you break law of land?”, you said. What happened next only proved that the cloth that covers the eyes of lady justice was opaque, not because she did not want to see who had come to her seeking justice, so she could be impartial, but because the truth was simply too much and looking away was easier.

Here, you have asked what happens to the rights of minorities as envisioned by our founding fathers, that tolerance (you make it clear that tolerance means accepting differences and not just putting up with someone) is a legacy we have been handed down and that the Muslims chose this country to stay back in after the partition and their dignity must be upheld. You have also said that they are our brothers and sisters and that if one breaks the law, the law will tumble upon him like a ton of bricks.

I truly believe that if Mahatma Gandhi were alive, he would have gladly ‘christened’ you, Justice Joseph as his worthy successor. I don’t disagree with what Justice Nagarathna said. Everyone has a right to conduct a rally but what happens in that rally is the point of contention, and why this same judiciary discarded that principle is something we will discuss further in this article.

You, Justice Joseph, asked a pertinent question – what about the rights of the minorities as ‘envisaged by our founding fathers’? First and foremost, Bharat is an ancient civilisation. Perhaps the religious conflict we see today is because we haven’t turned mere mortals into the “founding fathers” of a civilisation founded and nurtured by the Gods. You then said that Tolerance is not putting up with somebody but accepting differences. What you said sounds great for rhetoric, but the actual definition of tolerance is ‘the capacity to endure pain or hardship’. Here, I agree with you. Hindus have developed immense tolerance since we became a nation-state. We tolerated the Naokhali genocide. We tolerated Direct Action Day. We tolerated the Malabar genocide of Hindus. We tolerated being told that we must die with a smile on our faces. We tolerated being held responsible for our own genocide. We tolerate, to this day, overlords denying us our rights. Only yesterday we reported that Hindus had been denied their right of holding the Ram Navami procession because a year ago, in Jahangirpuri, the right-less, offended, aggrieved minority had gone on a rampage against Hindus during Hanuman Jayanti. We tolerated our rights being taken away so they are not offended, My Lord. Yes. We are tolerant. We have a legacy, a recent legacy, but a legacy nonetheless, of tolerating injustice. That you ask us to respect that tainted legacy, is what hurts me as a Hindu.

You say that Muslims chose to stay back in India and they are our brothers and sisters. We cannot hurt their dignity and self-respect. I agree with you, sir. If I may be so presumptuous, I would like to point out that you are talking not about tolerance but about pluralism – a concept that requires us to admit that every faith has a grain of truth to it and therefore, every faith is to be respected. Hindus have done their bit. Have those you protect extended that same courtesy?

“The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation” – Not my words, sir. The words of one of our ‘founding fathers’ you referred to – Dr BR Ambedkar. He further said, “The realist must take note of the fact that the Musalmans look upon the Hindus as Kaffirs, who deserve more to be exterminated than protected. The realist must take note of the fact that while the Musalman accepts the European as his superior, he looks upon the Hindu as his inferior.” Here is another one – “whether the number of prominent Hindus killed by fanatic Muslims is large or small matters little. What matters is the attitude of those who count, towards these murderers. The murderers paid the penalty of law where the law is enforced. The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs, and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them. ”

As for how the Muslims stayed back because they are our brothers, I am sure you know that is not entirely true. Numbers have proved otherwise. Evidence exists to the contrary. I would merely point you in the direction of this article and leave it at that.

Nevertheless, it confused me that after saying to the Hindu Samaj counsel that you would stick to the contempt petition, you went ahead and issued factually and morally inaccurate sermons to him, Hindu Samaj and I presume Hindus in general.

I won’t lie, however. While reading the report by Bar and Bench, I was momentarily swayed by your assertions of brotherhood and fraternity. I was tempted to shed everything I know to be factual and let go of all my anger against a community that has historically oppressed my people. Then, however, something happened that jolted me back to reality. After talking about the self-respect and dignity of the minority community and the brotherhood that we seemingly share, you almost justified the calls for genocide against my people.

When SG Tushar Mehta pointed out that when hearing a matter on hate speech, one must also consider hate speeches made against the Hindu community, you smiled and your statement gave the impression that you, and your brother judge, were justifying those calls. I understand why SG Mehta brought it up – you were indicting one community for alienating another. When hate speech is evaluated based on religion, both sides must be heard. You, however, denied Hindus that opportunity.

When Justice Nagarathna asked SG “why” the DMK leader said that “if you want equality, all Brahmins must be butchered”, he essentially asked what Brahmins or Hindus, in general, had done which forced the DMK leader to ask for their genocide. When you smiled and asked the SG if he knew who Periyar was, you essentially said that because Periyar wanted the genocide of Brahmins, the DMK leader asking for the same is justifiable.

By the same logic sir, would you say that demand for the partition of India is justified because Jinnah wanted it too? Would you accept separatist calls as justified? If a Muslim calls for the genocide of Hindus saying that they should be bothered on the day the Battle of Badr was fought and won by Allah, would you smile and remind us of Jinnah to justify those calls? If an Islamist says that he has the right to butcher non-believers, would you then quote the Quran to say that his genocidal call is justified?

You did not just stop there, sir. You went ahead and gave context to statements inciting the murder of Hindus by a proscribed terror outfit and blamed Hindus for these calls. Here is why I say this.

When SG Mehta insisted that you see a video clip of a speech made at a PFI rally, calling for the genocide of Hindus, you refused. For your benefit, here is the content of the video that SG Mehta wanted you to watch:

“Be ready for your death rituals if you won’t live in our land quietly. Be ready with rice flakes to fill your mouth, if you won’t live quietly (For Hindus ). Be ready to burn amber in your home if you won’t live quietly ( For Christians). Because we are coming, we are your death. We won’t go to Pakistan or Bangladesh, you have to live here as we say, or else we know how to make you live quietly, we will kill you even if we are attacked. We take pride in being a martyr, we salute them. If you won’t live quietly, we know how to ask for ‘Azadi’. Be prepared for your death,” the PFI members shouted in Malayalam. 

Furthermore, the mob also vowed to conduct ‘Sujood’ (a kind of prayer) in the disputed building of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya again. Also, they have decided to continue ‘Sujood’ in the disputed structure called ‘Gyanvapi Mosque’ which is built on the ruins of a temple in Varanasi. They said they are not leaving for Pakistan or Bangladesh and if they do so, they will take the Sangh Parivar along with them.

“Will do Sujood in Babri Masjid again. We will do Sujood in Gyanvapi too. Insha Allah Insha Allah…Reminding you Sanghis..Won’t leave for Pakistan, won’t leave for Bangladesh. We will go to 6 feet down under instead. Sanghis, listen to us before we go, If we go, we will “take” you also with us,” said the protesters who attended the PFI demonstration.

In the video, a boy could be heard raising the slogan, “Hindus should keep rice for their last rites, and Christians should keep incense for their last rites. If you live decently, you can live in our land, and if you don’t live decently properly, we know Azadi (freedom). Live decently, decently, decently.” People attending the rally were repeating the slogan.

To this speech, Justice Joseph, you said that hate speech is a vicious cycle and that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. What you essentially hinted at here was that the speech calling for the genocide of Hindus and Christians was a reaction and therefore, justified. I would remind you that PFI is a banned terror outfit. You, with your comment, ended up blaming Hindus for the genocidal comments by a banned Islamic terror outfit.

You then went on to repeat your incendiary remark when advocate Vishnu Jain mentioned the calls for Sar Tan Se Juda being given to Hindus over allegations of perceived “blasphemy”.

Justice Joseph: action has an equal reaction..

SG: please please please do not do this and this will be a justification of the clip. No no.

Justice Joseph: state is behaving impotent and does not take action in time

SG: Why do you not see the Kerala clip? Mr Jain’s plea has…

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) March 29, 2023

At the insistence that the petitioner must include these hate speeches in his petition as well, given that he seems to be extremely concerned about fraternity, brotherhood, and peace, you called the submissions a “drama” and summarily moved on after calling the state impotent.

Justice Joseph: Mr Jain come on April 28, 2023. Let us not make this into a drama. This is a legal proceeding.

SG Mehta: drama is now over. Please issue to Kerala also

Justice Joseph: call the next case#SupremeCourt

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) March 29, 2023

As a citizen and a Hindu who has spent the better part of the last decade documenting hate speech and crimes against Hindus, sir, I have a few questions based on this exchange. I can only hope that an institution that believes that dissent is the safety valve of democracy would directly, or indirectly, provide an answer to my questions.

1. Earlier during the hearing, you had said, “if you break the law then the law will befall you like a tumble of bricks. If you want to become a superpower there has to be a rule of law”. I agree with you. I have for a long time advocated for the State to enforce its writ with force. Why did you abandon this principle completely when lawyers like SG Tushar Mehta, Vishnu Shankar Jain, and PV Yogeshwaran pointed towards calls for death, murder, and genocide being given to the Hindu community – individually or as a group of people, based on their religion?

2. When someone who is meant to dispense justice smiles at the mere mention of calls for Brahmin genocide and then proceeds to offer a justification for such calls based on what a politician said decades ago, do you truly believe you have the moral fortitude to be the arbiter of Nyaya.

3. If you truly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, as an educated, ordained dispenser of Justice, would you say that Hindus taking out rallies against their rights being trampled by an intolerant community and demanding that the state takes appropriate action is also a reaction? Let me attempt to break this down. As 2022 drew to a close, at OpIndia, we attempted to analyse 153 cases of “Love Jihad” that we had reported. Every one of them had a religious angle where the Hindu woman was persecuted based on her religion. Some Muslim men pretended to be Hindu, Hindu women were force-fed beef, being converted to Islam or pressured to do so, cases of forced Halala, and so on. In the 153 cases, we saw that in 22 of these cases, the Muslim man had either force-fed beef to the Hindu woman, forced her to wear a hijab, or broken idols, stopping her from following her faith and converting to Islam. In 21 such cases, the Muslim man had threatened to make private videos public and in 3 cases, threatened the Hindu woman with beheading. Out of the 153 cases, 125 cases were those with adult victims whereas 28 were minor victims.

Now, these are just the cases OpIndia managed to cover. There were several more that we missed or did not know about. This is just one year. Under the circumstances, wouldn’t it be fair to say that a rally by Hindus demanding an anti-conversion law in the state of Maharashtra is a justifiable reaction? I would certainly not say it is an “equal and opposite reaction”, thank God, but it is a justifiable one nonetheless.

Let us take this further. I am sure you must have seen the video where two Islamists beheaded Kanhaiya Lal. The man who insulted Hindus’ faith and provoked Nupur Sharma into making that statement on television roams free today. Nupur Sharma’s life has been ruined forever. The court, at that time, blamed Nupur Sharma’s “loose tongue” for the murder of several people by Islamists. After losing hope in the State and the Judiciary in this case, if Hindus say that they will economically boycott the community murdering their brethren so that they can get the Islamists to maybe feel the consequence of going on murderous rampages, would you not consider that a “reaction” (still not an equal and opposite one). Why were the calls for genocide by DMK politicians and PFI terrorists considered a “reaction” by you but not the protests of the Hindu community?

4. When hate speech against Hindus was brought up in court, you said that the State was impotent in handling such hate speech on time. I agree with you, sir. The state is impotent when it comes to dealing with an intolerant minority. I have written extensively to that effect. But I have two questions. Firstly, when the State becomes impotent, citizens turn to the judiciary with the hope that their rights will be protected. Why were you more than happy to hear the pleas of a Muslim petitioner while dismissing those of Hindu lawyers representing Hindus demanding their rights? Secondly, by saying that the State is impotent and that they should have acted against hate speech against Hindus, you essentially insinuated that the court has no business getting into those aspects and that curtailing such genocidal calls is the job description of the state. If that is true, why did you not reach the same conclusion as far as the petition in question by a Muslim man is concerned?

5. You, Justice Joseph, believe it is your right to criticise the State where it errs and therefore deemed it appropriate to call the State impotent – an assessment I happen to agree with. However, if the unelected can call the elected impotent based on their morality, why is the court above questioning by ordinary citizens? Why does the court deem it appropriate to haul citizens over the coal over “contempt” charges when their opinions are questioned?

The Supreme Court has in the past taken judicial notice of ‘off the cuff’ remarks in a petition filed by the Election Commission against some oral observations made by a Judge of the Madras High Court in Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijayabhaskar, (2021) 9 SCC 770. The Court clarified that oral remarks are not a part of the official record and do not express any formal opinion and hence, cannot be expunged. The Court has highlighted that most such oral observations are elicitation-oriented. 

However, the Court relayed some apprehension about an increasing trend of Judges making caustic observations against litigants during hearings. The Supreme Court highlighted that “We must emphasize the need for Judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misrepresentation”. The case of the Election Commission was that in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the oral observations of the Judge of the Madras High Court of a “murder charge” was incorrect. The Supreme Court observed, in this context, that the remarks of the High Court were “harsh” and that the metaphor was “inappropriate”. 

If not in the interest of Justice and Nyaya, at least in the interest of being consistent, I am pressed to wonder if you would be more mindful in your oral comments and observations going forward. Personally, I have immense faith in the Judiciary as an institution. However, as a member of the Hindu community, I do believe that ‘justice’ will forever elude the persecuted majority when the question before the court is that of collective rights. Perhaps the Hindu community as a collective would do well to follow the advice of Isaac Asimov who said, “people who don’t expect justice don’t have to suffer disappointment”.