Posted on 12th November, 2024 (GMT 08:11 hrs)
ABSTRACT
The article discusses Justice S.C. Sharma’s role in cases affecting DHFL scam victims. It highlights his recent rulings, such as denying bail to DHFL’s Wadhawan brothers and opposing Aligarh Muslim University’s minority status, suggesting this stance might overlook the context of minority protections. Sharma’s past judgments in favor of vulnerable groups, including the physically challenged and marginalized, offer some hope for fair treatment of DHFL victims. The piece questions if his rulings can stay unbiased amid potential political pressures.
Dedicated to all the DHFL Scam Victims, whose resilience endures as they navigate the costly corridors of Indian justice, pouring both patience and hard-earned savings into their pursuit of justice and fairness…
Introduction
At present, along with Justice Bela M. Trivedi⤡, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma is also hearing the DHFL cases at the Hon. Supreme Court of India. We have already dealt with Justice Trivedi in our earlier post, Justice Sharma’s legal profile remains to be inspected into as of now.
However, it must be noted that there is a scarcity of proper data on the world wide web when it comes to Justice Sharma’s political associations as such, crudely speaking. In other words, Justice S. C. Sharma, due to the lack of the required “more than sufficient” (viz., the data threshold necessary to make certain claims or carry out certain justified/legitimate allegations about any person for that matter) data about his positionality in the legal cum political spectrum, appears to be another potential pawn, who could be (or already is being…?) possibly manipulated (like so many other judges and institutions) by the BJP as well. Yet, one might utilize the web-based platforms to turn his eyes towards the DHFL victims’ miseries and sufferings.
For that, we have to gather whatever we possibly can about Justice S. C. Sharma, beginning with two very recent verdicts and then going to and fro across his legal career as far as it is discoverable by the OBMA activists as of now.
The AMU Incident
In November, 2024, Hon. Justice Sharma recently stated that it is “wholly wrong” to assume that religious minorities require separate, protected educational spaces, challenging the perspective that minorities need unique environments to thrive educationally. This was done in the context of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)’s plea for granting it minority status. Justice Sharma further argued that such views could foster division rather than promote inclusivity. Justice Sharma emphasized that India’s secular constitution guarantees equal rights and opportunities across communities, stressing that education must be universally accessible to prevent isolation among groups. The question of universalization of education is pertinently stated by the Justice Sharma in the the global arena of academiocracy.
However, the thing is: he entirely misses the CONTEXTUAL point that religious minorities in India, especially the Muslim community, are at their most vulnerable state right now across all the public sectors (such as education, health, places of worship, food-habits etc.) due to the ruling party’s increasing role in projecting a theocratic, majoritarian agenda of Hindu Rashtra that goes against the foundational fabric of the Indian Constitution in making separate mentions for these communities-in-crisis, e.g., the Dalits within the Hindu umbrella along with the followers of Islam. Instead of refusing to grant what these censored voices are asking for, Justice Sharma might have instead addressed how and why the minorities are being compelled to seek special status of an institution of theirs. What or who caused this kind of socially marginalized state in the first place? Did S. C. Sharma make a note of that? He clearly did not.
Wholly wrong to assume minorities need ‘safe haven’ for education: Supreme Court Justice Satish Chandra Sharma VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 9th November, 2024 ©MSN)
It is also to be noted that AMU’s academic hierarchical bureaucracy is controlled by retired military personnel or ex-servicepersons with strict instructions of dress-codes (hijab for women and European or otherwise ‘Islamic’ dresses for men). Why is it so? Is it a defense mechanism of a particular minority group’s deep-rooted anxiety crises?
However, the majority verdict was in favour of giving AMU the minority status, in which, surprisingly enough, former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud gave an affirmative nod! Instead of being surprised, one can simply consider this to be one of his diplomatic balancing acts after a series of mess-ups and mishaps.
Aligarh Muslim University Entitled to Minority Status: SC in Majority Verdict VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 8th November, 2024 ©Newsd)
The Delhi Pogrom and Gulfisha Fatima’s Bail
Another very recent point of consideration to analyze the judicial psyche of Justice Sharma.
Gulfisha Fatima, a young student and dedicated human rights defender, took an active role in organizing the women-led protest in Seelampur, North East Delhi, against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA in 2020, just before the COVID-19 p(l)andemic hit us and an unplanned lockdown was imposed by the BJP government. Through her work, she sought to inform local women about the CAA’s highly deleterious implications and became a prominent advocate for upholding secular values and constitutional rights. Her efforts highlight her commitment to empowering her community and supporting inclusive, democratic principles.
Now, on 11th November, 2024, the Bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice S. C. Sharma at the Supreme Court of India refused to entertain Gulfisha Fatima’s bail plea, related to the 2020 Delhi riots case, and directed the Delhi High Court to consider it on November 25. Fatima has been falsely thrown into the custody for over four years on charges of so-called conspiracy behind the riots (which was allegedly a pogrom aided by the BJP), which resulted in 53 deaths and over 700 injuries. Her petition has been adjourned multiple times at the High Court. The Supreme Court emphasized following due procedure and did not intervene in her ongoing legal process. The Supreme Court pointed out to Kapil Sibal, Fatima’s lawyer, that the Delhi High Court has continually delayed her case, postponing hearings for various (un)known reasons.
Delhi riots: SC refuses to entertain bail plea of activist, asks HC to consider it on Nov 25 VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 11th November, 2024 ©The Federal)
How are we going to interpret or evaluate Justice Trivedi and Justice Sharma’s decision? Was it done with respect to the consecutive due process across the hierarchy of courts wherein Fatima’s case appears “premature” to the SC or was it deliberately done due to some implicit political influence by the BJP to keep her inside the jail for no apparent reason other than her anti-establishment identity? Other than speculating or making certain limited inferences, one cannot say anything conclusively concrete regarding such a sub judice matter. However, the dangerous tendency could as well be noted here, where the judiciary is proving to be inefficient again and again in ordering the release of those falsely/unsubstantially/unfoundedly/unjustifiably convicted political prisoners under the BJP regime such as Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, the Bhima Koregaon activists and so on.
The Wadhawans’ Affairs
We also have to note that along with Hon. Justice Bela Trivedi, Justice Sharma was responsible for cancelling the bail to Wadhawan brothers, the ex-promoters of the DHFL, the ones who guaranteed (multiple times) the full repayment of all the creditors of the DHFL. It must also be noted that none of the allegations against the Wadhawans have been conclusively proven as of yet. This does not mean that we are somehow giving relative privilege to the Wadhawans or making them guilt-free/innocent. In fact, we strongly believe that just like Mr. Piramal, they are two other similar crony capitalists, who thrive with their exploitative profit-motives by creating shell companies, by giving political charities and so on. There is no question of valuing one capitalist above the other, because, as a thumb rule, all of them survive by unjustifiably extracting the surplus value of the toiling masses.
SC cancels bail granted to former DHFL promoters VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 24th January, 2024 ©ET Realty)
Even so, we do respect Justice Sharma’s judicial wisdom in so far as his general and genuine philanthropic attitude is concerned, which shall be discussed below.
Going Further Down The Road
However, notable judgements that apparently seem to be towards the right “legal” direction are also present in the case of Justice S. C. Sharma. In Ashok Agarwal v Union of India (2023), Justice Sharma ordered Delhi’s government to enforce Supreme Court guidelines for implementing the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
In National Association for the Deaf v Union of India (2023), he ruled that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, by not providing the required 4% job reservations for PwDs. Justice Sharma highlighted the Act’s aim to ensure “reasonable accommodation” to enable PwDs to reach their potential. In many other significant legal cases, he has stood for the physically challenged, persons with autism, marginalized persons and so on.
Here are a few case instances:
Manual Scavenging Act Enforcement
- Case: Ashok Agarwal v. Union of India
- Date: 2023
- Summary: Directed strict compliance with Supreme Court’s guidelines on manual scavenging.
Reservation Policy for Disabled
- Case: Court on its own motion v. KVS
- Date: 2023
- Summary: Mandated KVS to clear reservation backlogs in six months.
Prisoner Welfare Awareness
- Case: Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India
- Date: 2015
- Summary: Urged awareness of social schemes for prisoners and their families.
KVS Disability Reservation Compliance
- Case: National Federation of the Blind v. KVS
- Date: 2023
- Summary: Set aside KVS recruitment for failing to meet disability reservation requirements.
Railway Safety Audits
- Case: Kush Kalra v. Union of India
- Date: 2023
- Summary: Mandated regular safety audits by Indian Railways.
Stem Cell Therapy for Autism
- Case: Dalip Kaur v. Union of India
- Date: 2023
- Summary: Allowed continuation of stem cell treatment for autism patients.
Educational Institutions’ Legal Status
- Case: St. Anns College for Women v. State of Telangana
- Date: 2021
- Summary: Determined educational institutions are governed by Telangana Education Act, not Shops Act.
Land Regularization in Telangana
- Case: Nagarjuna Nagar Welfare Assn. v. State of Telangana
- Date: 2022
- Summary: Validated government’s land regularization decision.
Equitable Treatment in Development Regulations
- Case: M. Anuradha v. State of Telangana
- Date: 2022
- Summary: Ordered equitable developmental regulation for lands near water bodies.
Support for Visually Impaired Students
- Case: National Federation of Blind v. State of Karnataka
- Date: 2021
- Summary: Ordered braille textbooks for visually impaired students.
SOURCES:
S.C. Sharma VIEW HERE ⤡ (©SC Observer)
Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge | Justice Satish Chandra Sharma VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 13th November, 2023 ©SCC Online)
Implications in the DHFL Scam
All of the above data regarding Justice Sharma’s case-history deserves our praise instead of outright, unfounded political critique due to some sort of presupposed confirmation bias. We, on behalf of the DHFL victims, are now looking forward to how he will be treating the “FINANCIALLY CHALLENGED” DHFL victims in the course of dealing with the DHFL case. We have not lost our hope entirely when it comes to Justice S. C. Sharma, despite his controversial ruling on the AMU’s minority status, Gulfisha Fatima’s bail matter as well as the previous denial of bail (which was otherwise legitimate from the point of view of legality as such) for the Wadhawan brothers.
Moreover, it is to be noted here that many physically challenged persons are in fact part of a section of the DHFL victims, such as that of the Sasakawa India Leprosy Foundation, Howrah South Point (that provides for physically challenged and deprived children by giving accommodation, schooling and offering health programmes), along with several Charitable/Philanthropic Institutions and so on, in which cases we feel that Justice Sharma might prove to be helpful, given his hitherto track record, once he is able to independently go through the breadth and length of the spectrum of the financially abused in the DHFL Scam.
Sasakawa India Leprosy Foundation vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 July, 2021 VIEW HERE ⤡
Leprosy Foundation moves plea against DHFL in Delhi HC VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 31st January, 2021 ©BusinessLine)
Conclusion
In conclusion, we would like to raise the issue of Justice Sharma’s moral self in dealing with such cases that address the crisis points of vulnerable sections, who suffer from the lack of justice due to the crony functioning of the present regime. We hope that he shall be able to preserve judicial integrity and independence by surpassing the political manipulation of judicial decisions. We strongly hope that he will be able to overcome the starkly BJP-inclined Justice Bela Trivedi’s political influence in framing a just judgment for all the DHFL victims.
Once in a Blue Moon Academia 
13 Comments