Thread by @dikgaj

1) So he admits that there can be absolute lack of trust in the police and judiciary. But that’s probably the reality for the absolute majority of people, who don’t have the resources of a company to buy Narimanian super advocacy or whatever is demanded at the police station.

https://twitter.com/Apoorvanand__/status/1455419094237204482

2) judicial activism within the court itself is lethal for a country as it seeks to bypass the legitimisation process of representative democracy. But open political/ideological commitments in public discourse by one who is still a sitting judge is a brazen challenge to people.

3) judiciary, elected representatives, crucially, the common citizen must think: one who hides behind state coercive protection of total immunity from criticism and is completely unanswerable to the ppl, is using his position to air political assumptions without placing evidence.

4) elected representatives have a limited claim to speak for people, and assert or deny what she/he thinks the people think as they remain answerable to their voters and can be penalised by removal if people think they have misrepresented them.

5) A judge cannot usurp to speak on behalf of, assert or deny on behalf of a people she/he is not answerable to, and who have been prevented from challenging his assumptions on their behalf. Claiming threat of violence without proof, is an ancient tactic of colonial regimes.

6) in this particular case it also seeks to turn the people into dumb mute spectators whose opinions don’t exist and should not count thereby seeking to erase the possibility that withdrawal was in fear of rejection by customers - and not any action by government/ruling parties.

7) the judiciary as a whole should recognise the very real dangers of weakening of whatever authenticity they retain in the eyes of the people - whose silence need not reflect their real views as yet - and impose restrictions on sitting judges participation in public discourse.