With all due respect to the Supreme Court, it is now fair to say that unwittingly some of its orders are giving aid and succour to all those tendencies that are out to subvert liberal values in this country. For the second time in less than a year, the Supreme Court has passed an order that should send a shiver down the spines of all those who care about freedom and the possibility of open-minded scholarship. In an order passed in the context of a Special Leave Petition 8931, the Supreme Court has suggested that “after hearing the learned counsel for parties at some length we feel that if Paras 2,5,7 and 8, of the Schedule are omitted, interest of justice would be best served.” The court clarifies that this suggestion shall “not in any way affect the merits of the issue involved,” which shall be examined after the response of “respondent no 4” is received.

The respondent in this case is James Laine; the paragraphs in question are from his book on Shivaji published by Oxford University Press, subject to a ban in Maharashtra. This ban was overturned relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court itself. And now two honourable justices feel that the cause of justice would be best served if Laine withdraws certain paragraphs. With all due respect, (and paraphrasing Montesquieu) the potential tyranny inherent in this order is made all the more insidious by it being carried out in the name of justice, and in the language of reasonable compromise. Why?

... contd.