All India Lawyers' Association for Justice has called for urgent action against Bareilly judge who— while describing it as a case of love jihad— awarded a Muslim man a life sentence for rape in a case where the complainant had withdrawn her testimony.
—
RECENTLY, a shocking incident came to the fore in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh where a judge presiding over a fast-track court sentenced a 24-year-old Muslim man named Mohd. Aalim Ahmed under Section 376-2n (repeated rape), Section 506 (criminal intimidation), and Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code.
In a 42-page Order, the judge also detailed the term 'love jihad', despite the woman in question rescinding her testimony.
Now, the All India Lawyers' Association for Justice (AILAJ), a pan-India organisation of lawyers and law students committed to upholding constitutional and democratic values, has issued a statement condemning the open bigotry and prejudice of judicial office Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who passed the Order against Ahmed.
The AILAJ statement mentions a previous Order passed by Judge Diwakar on March 5, 2024, where he had averred that the head of the State must be a religious person, among numerous other assertions that AILAJ calls "prejudicial" and "bigoted".
The AILAJ statement points out to Page 30 of the Order against Ahmed, which states, "It is clear from the above analysis that the case in question is a case of illegal conversion through love jihad, so first of all it is necessary to know what is love jihad?
"In love jihad, Muslim men systematically target Hindu women for conversion to Islam through marriage and Muslim men marry Hindu women by pretending to love them to convert them, as in the above case, the accused Mohd. Alim told his Hindu name as Anand and deceived the plaintiff/victim, married her according to Hindu customs and raped her and also made her photo and video and thereafter raped her several times.
"The main objective of love jihad is to establish dominance over India under demographic war and international conspiracy by some anarchist elements of a particular religion.
"In simple words, love jihad is the practice of Muslim men to marry women belonging to non-Muslim communities by pretending to love them in order to convert them to Islam.
"Illegal conversions through love jihad are carried out or made to happen by some anarchist elements of a particular religion or they cooperate in it or are involved in the conspiracy. Some anarchist elements get the above acts done, but the entire religion gets defamed. There is enough evidence for love jihad."
Critically, the AILAJ statement points out, the complainant was unequivocal during the trial that the case was filed under pressure from Hindu organisations and her parents.
She also stated that her statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Magistrate were given under the pressure of her parents.
However, judge Diwakar disregarded the complainant's testimony claiming that there is no truth in her allegation since "the victim is an educated woman" who is unlikely to buckle under the pressure of her parents.
The AILAJ statement says that Judge Diwakar sullied the complainant by stating, "According to this court, when the victim is not living with her parents, and is living alone in a rented house, and she brings an android phone when she appears in court. It is a mystery how she gets money to live alone in a house, to eat and drink, to wear clothes and to talk on mobile.
"Certainly, in the above case, the plaintiff/victim is being given some monetary help and this monetary help is being given through the accused, and the above case is a case of illegal conversion through love jihad."
The AILAJ statement also lists other sweeping, vague and unconnected observations made by Judge Diwakar, including:
In this regard, it is also noteworthy that in the case in question, the plaintiff/victim also belongs to the OBC category and an attempt has been made to convert her illegally through love jihad."
It has long been a trope of right-wing Hindutva ideology in India that Muslims and Christians target so-called 'lower' caste groups within Hinduism. This trope combines religious bigotry with casteist paternalism.
It also conveniently repurposes facts for ideological purposes as marginalised caste communities and individuals have historically had more reason to leave caste-riddled Hinduism for religions that do not subscribe to caste-based discrimination— at least on paper.
Similarly, the trope of 'innocent' Hindu women who, even as adults, cannot make their own decisions and can be easily duped by Muslim men is another favourite with right-wing Hindutva groups, overwhelmingly populated by men.
The AILAJ statement makes an important distinction by pointing out that the case was about rape, not illegal conversion.
"Yet the additional district judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar indulges in the bogey of conversation, ultimately even ruling that this is a case of unlawful conversion through love jihad.
He also criticises the police for not invoking the correct charges under the anti-conversion law and subsequently passes a direction that his judgment be sent to all the police stations in the district so police officers are informed about including provisions on all anti-conversion in all cases of illegal conversion and love jihad," the statement reads.
The AILAJ statement also points out that the judge directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the director general of police and chief secretary of the Uttar Pradesh government with the intention that they should strictly enforce the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 in Uttar Pradesh.
"This conviction Order is not only problematic for its right-wing views and its propagandising of anti-Muslim sentiments but for its questionable understanding of women's consent", the AILAJ statement says further.
The statement avers that by saying that educated women cannot succumb to pressure from their parents, Judge Diwakar betrays his ignorance of the patriarchal nature of Indian society where educated women are beholden to conservative and patriarchal influences often by coercion and force.
Calling the judgment delivered by Judge Diwakar as "communal, misogynous and paternalistic", the AILAJ statement says that it poses serious questions about the process through which judges are being appointed, trained and having their performances reviewed, and exposes the lack of immediate action when judges betray the foundational ideas of justice and equality owing to their prejudices and political leanings.
"In this case, the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, and appreciation of evidence are thrown to the winds as the judge, motivated by his prejudices against the Muslim community, force-fits evidence to suit his pre-conceived communal conspiracy theory of love jihad.
"Let us not mince words in saying that when prejudices predominate the judge's reasoning, the biggest casualty is the rule of law and the Constitution," the statement asserts forcefully.
The AILAJ statement also provides a reminder of the recent comments of the Supreme Court on Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court. While addressing a landlord–tenant dispute, Justice Srishananda had referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan".
If that was not enough, yet another video surfaced of the same judge making a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. In the video, in a case concerning a bounced cheque, Justice Srishananda can be seen asking a male advocate if his client was an income tax assessee.
The female lawyer appearing for the other side interjects, replying in the affirmative to the judge's question, for the reason that the client had filed returns. Justice Srishananda can then be seen retorting that the lady lawyer seems to know everything about the other side.
Then, without hesitating, he can be seen adding, "Tomorrow you may also say what undergarments he is wearing."
Taking suo motu cognisance of the matter, the Supreme Court had observed, "Judges need to be conscious of the fact that each individual bears a certain degree of accumulated predispositions, based on their experiences of life.
"Some may be early experiences. Others are gained later. Every judge should be aware of those predispositions. The heart and soul of judging lies in the need to be impartial and fair.
"Intrinsic to that process is the need for every judge to be aware of their own predispositions. Awareness of these predispositions is the first step in excluding them in the decision-making process.
"It is on the basis of that awareness that a judge can be faithful to the fundamental obligation to render objective and fair justice. Every stakeholder in the administration of justice has to understand that the only values which must guide decision-making are those which are enshrined in the Constitution of India."
The AILAJ statement asserts that it is clear that the Supreme Court's message has not percolated to judicial officers like Ravi Kumar Diwakar.
It underlines that earlier prejudicial and bigoted statements made by him were expunged by the Allahabad High Court for "containing political overtones and personal views".
The Allahabad High Court had also observed that it is not appropriate for judicial officers to express or depict their personal or pre-conceived notions or inclinations in any matter.
The high court had stated, "The judicial Order is meant for public consumption and such type of Order is likely to be misconstrued by the masses. It is expected from a judicial officer that he should use a very guarded expression while focusing upon the issue in hand and should not use any observation which is tangential or alien to the core issue."
The AILAJ statement rues the fact that neither the caution of the Allahabad High Court nor the homilies by the Supreme Court seem to have had much impact on judicial officers like Judge Diwakar.
It calls for strict attention against such conduct to restore the legitimacy of the judicial system. Calling Judge Diwakar "unfit to continue as a judicial officer", the statement urges necessary action to ensure that he does not continue as a judicial officer.