In the theatre of Indian politics, silence often speaks louder than words. This adage found a potent new context this week when a shoe was hurled at Supreme Court Justice B.R. Gavai during a public event in Nagpur. While the act itself was a shocking display of contempt for the judiciary, it is the subsequent silence from the nation’s highest executive office that has ignited a fierce political debate, with veteran lawyer and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal leading the charge.
The Shocking Incident: An Attack on the Judiciary
The incident, a brazen attack not just on an individual but on the very institution of the Supreme Court, was universally condemned. It represented a new low in public decorum and a dangerous disregard for one of the core pillars of our democracy. Yet, amidst the chorus of condemnation from legal luminaries and opposition leaders, a conspicuous silence emanated from Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s office.
Kapil Sibal‘s Critique: ‘Disappointing, To Say the Least’
It was this silence that drew the sharp, measured critique of Kapil Sibal. Known for his incisive legal and political commentary, Sibal’s reaction was encapsulated in a loaded phrase: the Prime Minister’s lack of response, he suggested, was “disappointing, to say the least.”
This is not mere political rhetoric. The phrase “to say the least” is a classic understatement, implying that the reality is far more severe than the words used. In Sibal’s framing, the Prime Minister’s silence is not just a missed opportunity to condemn an abhorrent act; it is a worrying signal. It begs the question: why would the head of the government not immediately and forcefully condemn an attack on a sitting Supreme Court judge, a man in line to be the Chief Justice of India?
Why PM Modi’s Silence is Under Scrutiny
Critics argue that Prime Minister Modi is typically quick to comment on a wide array of issues through social media and public addresses. His choice to remain silent on an issue that strikes at the heart of institutional dignity is, therefore, seen by many as a deliberate one. For Sibal and others in the opposition, this silence could be interpreted as a reflection of the underlying friction between the executive and the judiciary in recent years. They contend that a strong, unequivocal statement from the Prime Minister would have served as a powerful reassurance of the government’s respect for judicial independence.
Supporters of the government might counter that condemning every such incident gives undue publicity to miscreants or that the opposition is politicising a criminal act. However, the symbolism of the act transcends a simple law and order issue. A shoe hurled at a Supreme Court judge is an assault on the majesty of the law itself. In a democracy, the visible commitment of its leaders to uphold the sanctity of its institutions is paramount.
Kapil Sibal’s pointed criticism, therefore, pushes the narrative beyond the deplorable act in Nagpur. It transforms the incident into a litmus test for the government’s commitment to democratic norms. As the debate continues, the silence from the top continues to reverberate, leaving a vacuum that is being filled with speculation and concern, which is, as Sibal’s comment implies, unsettling, to say the least.
