,
9 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
A thread on the "Supreme Court" of India and its origin. The Federal Court was established in India by the British Rulers by the Government of India Act of 1935 passed by British Parliament. The "Supreme Court" is that court, with just a name change in 1950. 
The history of the Supreme Court and its original appointees is crucial. Because a collegium system implies that the legacy of its original appointees must continue, rather than judges be subject to democratic process accountable to the people of India or their representatives.
Note the appointment of Judges to the original Supreme Court was deeply slanted to those embedded in the Colonial State. It was also mandatorily drawn from the Anglicized elite, since the language of the Court was only English, by the Act.
The rules that the SC follows today, like the Chief Justice setting the roster, are from the British Act, including forcing English. This Court is *that* Court—highly conservative of its own (British) legacy, as it seeks to "fix" native traditions—the actual "law of the land."
The "Supreme Court" judges after independence were simply those who had been judges under the British earlier—imposing colonial laws on the natives. The first Chief Justice of "independent" India H J Kania, had even been knighted for loyalty to the Crown.
The rules of High Court appointees also mandated only the Anglicized elite, the sepoys and collaborators who had been officials in the oppressive colonial state, would get selected. High Court also allowed appointed from the ICS, the other indoctrinated class of Brown sahibs.
So when we ask—"why is the Court so biased against Hindu traditions", remember. It's an English Court, a colonial bureaucracy. It was established to control the Indian people. It is not in continuity with Bharat—but in conflict with Indian civilization.
In fact, the entire Indian State is in conflict with the Indian civilization. It is a colonial state. Its relation to the people is still colonial. With the police and their danda, with the Court System, with the district "collector", with its encroachment on tribal lands.
Note the limited power of the Supreme Court of UK vs that of India. It cannot overturn any primary laws passed by the parliament.
Similarly jury trials were removed from Indian Courts. Anything that privileges people and democracy is abhorrent to the colonial State.
Similarly jury trials were removed from Indian Courts. Anything that privileges people and democracy is abhorrent to the colonial State.
