Justice through a broader lens

What the Supreme Court ordered in response to an urgent petition filed by Vrinda Grover in Md Zubair case could also be deduced by a simple reasoning. The judicial order, however, holds weightage as it effectively provides a protective cover to the accused journalist and co-founder of Alt News against the misuse of the system. The supreme Court bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna directed the Uttar Pradesh police to not take any 'precipitative action' against Md Zubair until the next hearing — which is scheduled for today. In his oral remark, Justice DY Chandrachud highlighted that "Contents of all FIRs seem to be similar. What seems to be happening is, as he gets bail in one case, he is remanded in another. This vicious cycle is continuing". Irrespective of the outcome of today's hearing — which the SC bench will arrive at depending on the merit of the case — the apprehension raised by the apex court is alarming. Though not explicit, it carries an element of suspicion regarding the actions of the executive branch of the government. Without saying so, the court order has indicated a malfunction or ill intention on the part of the police. More shocking is Vrinda Grover's allegation that "rewards have been announced for registering FIR against Zubair" for "evergreening of his custody". The allegation made by Grover can't be discarded completely as it resonates with what has been unfolding on the ground. A few days after Md Zubair highlighted Nupur Sharma's Prophet remarks — which brought great shame and disgust to the nation — the fact-checker journalist found himself in trouble on account of his 2018 tweet in which he shared a screen grab from an old Hrishikesh Mukherjee movie. Following an FIR filed by an anonymous Twitter user, Zubair was arrested on June 27. Ever since, Zubair has been embroiled in a chain of FIRs, and even newer charges — including irregularity of funds — have been framed against him. It is ridiculously confusing as to how a practicing journalist could suddenly become an accused in not one or two, but a total of six separate cases in a span of one month. The chain of FIRs — one filed after the accused gets interim bail in the previous ones — is indeed confounding. This might require some investigation, or a relook. The Supreme Court's intervention is indeed a timely one — more so when Vrinda Grover revealed death threats to the journalist. It may be highlighted that Md Zubair is no ordinary citizen. He has been a part of what is popularly called the fourth pillar of democracy. There is no denying the fact that all citizens are equal before the law — they are indeed in procedural terms — but at the same time, the Indian legal system appears to weigh prominence under certain laws like defamation or sedition. In essence, there is a gradient of sorts, depending upon the impact of proceedings. In practical terms, Zubair's prominence as a journalist is a factor that can't escape public discourse. While charges against him will undergo legal scrutiny on the merit of law, an abrupt chain of FIRs against him needs to be seen through a critical public perspective. Given the kind of profession journalism is, a professional always stands the risk of creating enemies for the self. Larger socio-political realities should not be covered up under the shield of legality. To its credit, the Supreme Court is known to efficiently incorporate ground realities while delivering orders within the legal ambit. While legality is a tool for justice delivery, the idea of justice is unalienable to society and politics. The moot point is that political and social attributes can be allowed to remain in the hindsight while law takes its due course. A clarification appears pertinent here that socio-political considerations and prominence of particular persons should not amount to prejudice. Prejudice is, in a way, an obstacle to justice, and should be avoided at all costs. Such avoidance, however, is a challenge in the age of social media splits and trials. The case will develop further as the SC hears the matter today, but its observation in the last hearing should provoke us to retrospection.