It is the same as JUDGES while themselves protected with tough woodland shoes & then with great enthusiasm VENTURE to adjudicate rights of humanity, in continuous deprivation, suffering BAREFOOT on path scattered with broken glasses.
As long as judges, AT LEAST, imagine removing their tough shoes and imagine exposing themselves to the hazard of walking barefoot on path of broken glasses, they can hardly imagine the pain, then is felt when the particle of broken glass penetrate to the legroom and the consequent red fluid slowly come from there.
Therefore, when the pain of this suffering humanity is not properly imagined, Judges think that they are at liberty to arrive that NO rights of theirs are violated. Status quo can be maintained.
Moreover, sometime I wonder, when all the cases of suffering humanity are filed in representative capacity i.e. in the form of PILs, wherein the actual victim is not present arguing before the court for his fundamental & Statutory dues, the real pain on the face of victim is bound to be missing on the face of Counsel who is arguing for the victims. Again, Judges find themselves in better position to arrive that NO rights of theirs are violated. Status quo can be maintained.
I don’t think, if any court in the whole world, has enough courage to refuse a due relief to a women, ARGUING HERSELF before the court, when she is subject to everyday humiliation, when she is to defecate in the open public eye, when the men at administration take various defense for their failing to supply enough public toilets, a very basic need of life.
I don’t think, if any court in the whole world, has enough courage to refuse a due relief to a Child who is to beg for survival when the sovereign governments has promised dignity of life to him. But then the begging Child must be present in the court asking for relief because the Counsel is incapable of shedding tears which the begging child will.
It appears- HUMANS ARE ILL-EQUIPPED TO “ REALL KNOW / IMAGINE ” TO WHAT HE HAS NOT LIVED.
The above proposition come to my mind while I was reading a mail of- Affidavit filed by Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan in persuant to criminal contempt petition filed against him for his "objectionable statements" against the sitting SC Judge Mr kapadia. The Affidavit, among other things, highlighted how the SC has systematically sidelined the Petitioner's Counsel and appointed Amicus Curiae. The Amicus Curiae who happens to be the senior and the most expensive counsel of our time, took the case of the same party against whom he has to assist the court and he appointed his junior to play the role of amicus curiae. Then the SC went on to blatantly refuse the reliefs due to the petititoners. More shockingly, it is this Amicus curiae, the senior and most expensive counsel, has filed this criminal contempt petition.
Janhit Manch, Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai- 400056.