Is Supreme Court biased against majority In India ? Aanand Rangnathan Views

Anand Ranganathan’s 9 Allegations Against Supreme Court (With Critical Analysis)

1. Allegation on Kashmir Hindus
   The SC formed a large bench for Article 370 abrogation but ignored pleas related to atrocities against Kashmir Hindus, showing selective judicial activism.
   Critical view: Arguments about the SC prioritizing some issues over others reflect political expectations more than constitutional duties.
   youtube​

2. Religious Discrimination Bias
   The Court allegedly overlooks systemic bias and discrimination against Hindus in several rulings impacting temples, religious rights, and property disputes.
   Critical view: The judiciary must maintain secular neutrality; perceptions of bias often stem from political narratives rather than legal principles.
   youtube​

3. Double Standards on Religious Property
   Ranganathan and other critics highlight the Court’s different stance on mosques vs temples property verification and documents.
   Critical view: Each case involves unique legal facts; judicial decisions tend to follow evidence rather than religion-based criteria.
   x​youtube​

4. Stoking Religious Polarization
   The Supreme Court’s interventions are said to indirectly fuel religious tensions instead of resolving conflicts, risking social harmony.
   Critical view: The courts’ role in conflict resolution is complex; accusations of polarizing society overlook the judiciary’s constitutional mandate to uphold fundamental rights.
   youtube​

5. Neglect of Majority Sentiments
   It is alleged that the Court disregards the political and social sentiments of the Hindu majority, alienating them in key judgments.
   Critical view: The judiciary must protect minorities and uphold constitutional morality, sometimes leading to judgments that do not align with popular sentiment.
   youtube​

6. Lack of Transparency and Accountability
   Questions are raised about the process of judicial inquiry, such as in the cash seizure case involving judges, perceived as lacking due transparency.
   Critical view: Judicial accountability mechanisms are evolving; however, the principle of judicial independence limits public disclosure of some processes.
   youtube​instagram​

7. Judicial Overreach in Political or Legislative Matters
   Allegation that the Court oversteps its mandate by encroaching on legislative or executive domains, disrupting the balance of power.
   Critical view: Judicial review is a core check and balance in democracy, but overreach accusations depend on one’s view of separation of powers.
   youtube​

8. Delayed Justice and Selective Case Hearing
   Allegations that the Court delays or denies hearing politically sensitive cases or selectively acts on petitions depending on public sentiment or political pressure.
   Critical view: Case backlogs and discretion in judicial admission are systemic issues; selective hearing claims are often speculative without firm evidence.
   youtube​

9. Impact on National Integration and Law and Order
   The Court’s decisions allegedly create fissures that threaten national integration and law and order by being perceived as biased or inconsistent.
   Critical view: Judicial decisions can impact social peace but are ultimately aimed at upholding constitutional rights and justice even if unpopular at times.
   youtube​

हिंदी में

1. कश्मीर हिंदुओं के प्रति पक्षपात – न्यायालय ने अनुच्छेद 370 हटाने पर उच्च स्तरीय पीठ बनाई, लेकिन कश्मीर हिंदुओं के प्रति हिंसाओं को नजरअंदाज किया।

2. धार्मिक भेदभाव – हिंदुओं के धार्मिक अधिकारों और संपत्ति विवादों में न्यायालय पक्षपात करता है।

3. धार्मिक संपत्ति विवाद में द्वैध मानक – मस्जिदों और मंदिरों के मामले में फरक रवैया अपनाना।

4. धार्मिक तनाव को बढ़ावा – सुप्रीम कोर्ट के कारनामे धार्मिक विभेद बढ़ाने वाले हैं।

5. अधिकांश की भावनाओं की अनदेखी – हिंदू बहुमत के सामाजिक-राजनीतिक विचारों को नजरअंदाज किया जाना।

6. पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही की कमी – जजों के खिलाफ जांच में पारदर्शिता की कमी।

7. राजनीतिक मामलों में न्यायालय की अतिक्रमण – विधायिका तथा कार्यपालिका के अधिकार क्षेत्र में हस्तक्षेप।

8. न्यायालय का न्याय में देरी और चुनींदा सुनवाई – महत्वपूर्ण मामलों में सुनवाई में देरी या पक्षपात।

9. राष्ट्रीय एकता और कानून व्यवस्था पर प्रभाव – निर्णयों से सामाजिक एकता पर नकारात्मक प्रभाव।

Anand Ranganathan’s allegations against the Supreme Court regarding discrimination against the Hindu majority are a mix of factual references and subjective interpretations.

• Many of the specific points he raises, such as the Supreme Court’s decisions on cases related to Kashmir Hindus, the Wakf land issue, and the Right to Education Act’s reservation impact on Hindu-run schools, are based on actual legal developments and judgments. These points reflect real judicial rulings and legislative frameworks, though the interpretation as “blatant discrimination” is contested.

• Critics and neutral observers note that Ranganathan’s framing often infuses these legal facts with a narrative of systemic bias that amplifies Hindu grievances, sometimes overlooking the complex constitutional balancing acts that courts must perform in a diverse society.

• Some claims, particularly about selective enforcement or judgment leniency, are debated within legal and political circles, with responses ranging from highlighting judicial constraints to counter-accusations of political motivations behind such critiques.

• Official legal institutions have not formally accepted Ranganathan’s allegations as proven bias but rather encourage scrutiny through proper channels of judicial review and public debate.

• Ranganathan himself is known for his controversial stands and has faced legal scrutiny, though no conclusive legal rebukes have discredited his individual claims outright.

• Thus, Ranganathan is partially correct in highlighting some genuine judicial and administrative issues affecting the Hindu community, but the overall assertion of deliberate, systemic anti-Hindu bias by the Supreme Court remains a debated and politically charged perspective rather than an established legal fact.

In summary, Anand Ranganathan’s claims have a factual basis but are amplified with a particular ideological lens; the correctness of his overall portrayal of the Supreme Court as biased against the Hindu majority is not conclusively established and remains a subject of controversy among legal experts and commentators.

Referances:-