Original Published Link

Without doubt, though he will be re­mem­bered more for his ex­haus­tive Re­port on the Sta­tus of Mus­lims sub­mit­ted in 2006, his affin­ity and friend­ship with the Sikhs and his bold­ness to stand-up to the gov­ern­ment of the day in the eight­ies of the last cen­tury will be a glo­ri­ous chap­ter in the his­tory of those times.

1984 marked a wa­ter­shed in the re­la­tion­ship be­tween In­dia and Pun­jab. Vis­it­ing Delhi from the Pun­jab was in­stilled with fear. The po­lice gave strange looks to every Sikh -young or old. The po­lit­i­cal par­ties, mainly the rul­ing one threw up one poi­so­nous state­ment af­ter an­other tar­nish­ing the Sikhs in gen­eral and the Sikhs of Pun­jab in par­tic­u­lar.

“I have had the op­por­tu­nity to at­tend meet­ings and ex­change notes with him on the sit­u­a­tion in Pun­jab. He al­ways felt home talk­ing in Pun­jabi when­ever he would in­ter­act with any­one from Pun­jab.”

A score of in­di­vid­u­als in Delhi, who were oth­er­wise un­known to Sikhs took upon them­selves to turn the tide around. One of the key per­son amongst the gallery of such brave stal­warts -men and women, who stood up to the gov­ern­ment of the day was none other than Jus­tice Ra­jin­der Sachar, re­tired Chief Jus­tice of the Delhi High Court. Af­ter his re­tire­ment as a judge in De­cem­ber 1985, his civil rights ac­tivism be­came his life’s core.

He was a civil rights ac­tivist at heart and re­mained one till the very end.  Though closely as­so­ci­ated with the main civil rights group of those times -The Peo­ple’s Union for Civil Lib­er­ties -PUCL, he was amenable to one and all. 

Many of the younger gen­er­a­tions in Pun­jab and the Sikh Di­as­pora would like to know that he was the son of Bhim Sen Sachar -two-time Chief Min­is­ter of un­di­vided Pun­jab. He was one of the ar­chi­tects of the Cit­i­zens Jus­tice Com­mit­tee Re­port on Pun­jab with Jus­tice Sikri and Jus­tice Tarkunde. He was part of the pow­er­ful Pun­jabi lobby in Delhi.

I have had the op­por­tu­nity to at­tend meet­ings and ex­change notes with him on the sit­u­a­tion in Pun­jab. He al­ways felt home talk­ing in Pun­jabi when­ever he would in­ter­act with any­one from Pun­jab. One would never get over­awed that one was in con­ver­sa­tion with a for­mer judge. He was jovial and ami­able putting an arm around with lov­ing cor­dial­ity.

“He sta­tis­ti­cally re­butted the right-wing ap­proach of Mus­lim ap­pease­ment in In­dia in his 404 page Re­port on the So­cial, Eco­nomic and Ed­u­ca­tional Sta­tus of the Mus­lim Com­mu­nity in In­dia.”

He has penned many a re­port on hu­man rights vi­o­la­tions in Kash­mir. Though one would dis­agree about his po­lit­i­cal views on self-de­ter­mi­na­tion in Kash­mir and Pun­jab, no­body could ques­tion his stead­fast­ness for an in­clu­sive and equal so­ci­ety. De­spite tremen­dous pres­sure, he was a de­ter­mined ad­vo­cate for abo­li­tion of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment.

He sta­tis­ti­cally re­butted the right-wing ap­proach of Mus­lim ap­pease­ment in In­dia in his 404 page Re­port on the So­cial, Eco­nomic and Ed­u­ca­tional Sta­tus of the Mus­lim Com­mu­nity in In­dia. His call to set up an Equal Op­por­tu­nity Com­mis­sion is still to be im­ple­mented. 

One of the lat­est cam­paigns be­ing pur­sued by PUCL, of which Jus­tice Ra­jin­der Sachar too was a votary of abo­li­tion of “sedi­tion” pro­ceed­ings from the In­dian Pe­nal Code. One can­not for­get how he strongly  op­posed and cam­paigned against TADA -Ter­ror­ist and Dis­rup­tive Ac­tiv­i­ties (Pre­ven­tion) Act and POTA -Pre­ven­tion of Ter­ror­ist Ac­tiv­i­ties Act.

Original Published Link

In the later period of his life, Justice Sachar was mainly known for the Sachar Committee Report. The Sachar Committee, headed by Justice Rajindar Sachar, was constituted in 2005 by the then Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh with the aim to prepare a report about social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community in the country. The Committee’s 403 page report was presented in the Lok Sabha on 30 November 2006. The findings and recommendations of the report immediately became a topic of sharp debate in political, social and intellectual circles. The report was considered to be a mirror which showed the true picture of the Muslim community throughout India. Consequently, it received praise from a large part of intelligentsia as well as from political parties. Although there were some dissenting voices too about the findings, recommendations and methodology of the report, it was well received by most people. After the publication of the Report, many adverse reactions were made. An assassination plan was also reported. When this disclosure was published in the Indian Express, I wrote a letter to the Manmohan Singh government requesting it to provide protection to Justice Sachar. But the government did not pay heed to my request although the same government wanted to give him Padam Bhushan in lieu of the Report, which Justice Sachar humbly refused.

The report, known as ‘Sachar Committee Report, brought for the first time attention to the ever growing economic inequality and social insecurity and alienation of Muslims in India since Independence. It found, on basis of official data, that the Muslim population, estimated at over 138 million in 2001, were under-represented in the civil service, police, military and in politics. Muslims were more likely to be poor, illiterate, unhealthy and to have trouble with the law in comparison to the other Indians. Thus the myth of ‘Muslim appeasement’ was thoroughly exposed and the report became a focus of debate and controversy among scholars and political parties/leaders. Justice Sachar’s activities, including this Report, were guided by the perspective of socialist ideology and the socialist movement of India. First and foremost, he was a staunch Lohian socialist.

Then there started a race among various political parties to make promises in their manifestoes to implement the recommendations of the Sachar Committee Report. The only exception was BJP which, in fact, opposed the report vehemently. But the secular parties kept repeating their promises through manifestos and rhetoric. However, when one reviews the progress of the report carried out by the central and the state governments, particularly the implementation aspect of its recommendations, the picture appears to be quite dismal.

The Report states that the minorities, especially the Muslims, have been the ignored factor in all Central Governments. Amongst the various recommendations, the Prime Minister’s High Level Committee Report had recommended the establishment of Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) as an instrument to prevent discrimination against minorities in the private sector like housing and employment. It was an important point since courts cannot interfere in cases of discrimination in private sector. This recommendation has been inexcusably sidelined and has remained in cold storage. The EOC can be set up by the state governments without taking permission from the Central government. A very urgent recommendation of the Report dealt with the unfairness of divisions of electoral constituencies which results in lesser number of Muslims in the legislature to which they are broadly entitled, based on the population. This anomaly arises from the irrational demarcation of seats in the legislature.

In U.P. there is abundant potential for substantial number of Muslims to win seats. As per the Report, to address this, the delimitation of constituencies in a fair manner is essential. But on the contrary the constituencies with substantial number of Muslims have been reserved for S.C., and constituencies with substantial number of S.C. voters are unreserved. This is unfair to both Muslims and S.C. electorate. The Committee had hoped that it would receive the attention of the Government immediately because the Delimitation Commission was at that time engaged in this exercise and evidently any suggestion or any exercise to be done by it had to be undertaken during the current term of the then Delimitation Commission. But, the Committee’s suggestion was ignored during the delimitation.

But now, as far as the Muslim minority is concerned, politics has taken a different turn after the advent of Narendra Modi on the national scene. As a result to that no political party has mentioned the recommendations of the Sachar Committee in its manifesto during Lok Sabha elections 2019. Justice Sachar wanted to live on till this election. But unfortunately his health did not permit him to fulfill his desire. If he had been alive today, he would have felt very upset about this development.

The author teaches Hindi at Delhi University and is president of Socialist Party (India).

Original Published Link

Sachar was very involved in the affairs of Socialist Party (India), which he and senior socialist leaders like Surendra Mohan, Bhai Vaidya, Pannalal Surana and Keshav Jadhav formed in 2011 along with several young socialists. Sachar held on to the hope that the old glory of the Socialist Party and the original spirit of the movement/ideology will thrive once again in Indian politics. I often wondered about his optimism and used to ask him that if people around him did not respond adequately to his appeals, how could he hope that public, in general, would support his party and candidates?

To that, he only used to give an innocent smile, without the slightest sign of pessimism. His smile always kept us in a positive frame of mind.

In his later life, Sachar was known primarily for the Sachar Committee Report. The committee, headed by Justice Sachar, was constituted in 2005 by the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with the aim to prepare a report about social, economic and educational status of the Muslim community in India.

The committee’s 403-page report was presented in the Lok Sabha on November 30, 2006. The findings and recommendations of the report immediately became a topic of sharp debate in political, social and intellectual circles. The report was considered a mirror that showed the true picture of the Muslim community. Consequently, it received praise from a large part of the intelligentsia as well as from political parties. Although there were some dissenting voices about the findings, recommendations and methodology of the report, it was well received by most people. After its publication, there were severe reactions as well.

The report brought attention for the first time to the ever-growing economic inequality and social insecurity and alienation of Muslims since Independence. It found, on the basis of official data, that the Muslim population, estimated at over 138 million in 2001, were under-represented in the civil services, police, military and in politics. Muslims were more likely to be poor, illiterate, unhealthy and to have trouble with the law in comparison to the other Indians. Thus the myth of “Muslim appeasement” was thoroughly exposed. Justice Sachar’s activities, including this Report, were guided by socialist ideology. First and foremost, he was a staunch Lohian socialist.
Soon, there was a race among various political parties to make promises in their manifestoes to implement the recommendations of the Sachar Committee Report. The only exception was BJP which, in fact, opposed the report vehemently. However, when one reviews the progress of by the central and the state governments, particularly with respect to the implementation of the report’s recommendations, the picture appears quite dismal.

The report states that the minorities, especially the Muslims, have been the ignored factor in all central governments. Amongst the various recommendations, the Prime Minister’s High Level Committee Report had recommended the establishment of an Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC) as an instrument to prevent discrimination against minorities in the private sector in matters such as housing and employment. It was an important point, since courts cannot interfere in cases of discrimination in the private sector. This recommendation has been inexcusably sidelined. The EOC can be set up by the state governments without taking permission from the Centre.

A very urgent recommendation of the report dealt with the unfairness of divisions of electoral constituencies, which results in less number of Muslims in the legislature compared to their proportion in the population. This anomaly arises from the irrational demarcation of seats in the legislature.

In Uttar Pradesh, for example, there is abundant potential for a substantial number of Muslims to win seats. As per the report, to address this, the delimitation of constituencies in a fair manner is essential. But, on the contrary, the constituencies with a substantial number of Muslims have been reserved for Schedule Castes, and constituencies with a substantial number of SC voters are unreserved.

This is unfair to both the Muslim and SC electorate. The Sachar Committee had hoped that this issue would receive immediate government attention because the Delimitation Commission was at that time active and, evidently, any suggestion or exercise with respect to delimitation had to be undertaken during the term of the then Delimitation Commission. But, the Committee’s suggestion was ignored during the delimitation.

But now, as far as the Muslim minority is concerned, politics has taken a different turn after the advent of Narendra Modi on the national scene. As a result, no political party has mentioned the recommendations of the Sachar Committee in their manifesto. Justice Sachar wanted to live on till this election. Unfortunately, his health did not permit him to fulfil that desire. Had he been alive today, he would have felt very upset about this development.

Original Published Link

We are assembled here today to pay homage to a legend in his own right, Late Jus. Rajindar Sachar, who passed away on 20 April 2018 at the grand old age of 94. His was an extraordinary life. He was a many – splendoured personality and to refer to his achievements is no easy task. I should be forgiven if this reference is a little longer than usual.

 Read Full Court Reference

I am very grateful to the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Aliah University, for inviting me to this great meeting in memory of Justice Rajinder Sachar. I feel honoured to be here as an ordinary member of the public, whose participation found a central place in Justice Sachar’s core values on the formation and practice of democracy. For him democracy had no alternative—it was the mean as well as the end. Seeing the question of democracy in that light—both as mean and end—one cannot but stretch the boundaries of democracy to such extent that ensures human freedom—freedom from injustice, oppression, unequal treatment—which are called negative freedoms—on the one hand and freedom to taking part in the deliberations concerning the functioning of the society—named as positive freedoms. Law is one—very central—part of the practice of democracy; electoral exercises are another part of the whole; free speech, free assembly are the equally important constituents of that practice. To borrow the political philosopher John Rawls’ words: “Liberal constitutional democracy is supposed to ensure that each citizen is free and equal and protected by basic rights and liberties.” This very much includes the sense that “citizens can have their own grounding in their comprehensive doctrines, whatever they happen to be.”

Justice Sachar’s understanding of this dialectical core of democracy, individual freedom vis a vis larger social existence—individual being individual, and also being part of the society—developed in him to see things in a larger perspective where owing to particular social segmentation some sections of the people are made to inherit historically, particular political, social and economic disadvantages. In his realisation, “In any country, the faith and confidence of the minorities in the functioning of the State in an impartial manner is an acid test of its being a just State.” For a country to flourish, it cannot but ensure fuller opportunity for every citizen to flourish—opportunity to enhance human capability.

To paraphrase Amartya Sen, democracy is not only important in itself, but is also compatible with human capability-based expansion. For example, in India it was the democratic base of the country that has successfully kept the frequently occurred famines during colonial days at bay. Despite that success India is still struggling with widespread hunger, illiteracy, ill health; the struggle is at two levels: to eradicate the actual menace of human unfreedom—poverty, hunger, ignorance, ailments, and so on, and to abolish the social divisions that cause the unfreedoms. Justice Sachar saw the case of minorities from this point of view: as citizen any member of the society has some basic rights, and it is an imperative for the state to protect those rights.

The India that Justice Sachar belonged to drew on the rich Indian traditions of plurality, mutual respect, and pursuing of individual beliefs and faiths on one hand; and the obscurantist social divisiveness based on gender, caste, religion, on the other. The India that has successfully prevented famine, kept the constitutional institutions more or less intact, has miserably failed to prevent the atrocities upon the women—the very survival of the girl children in large parts of India being uncertain. Take the case of Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Madhyapradesh, Rajasthan. The areas have a terribly low female-male ratio in the population in general and among the children under six in particular. The obscurantist social institution, namely, caste has had a huge infliction on the chance of survival of girl children: the higher the population segment is in the social ladder the lower the chance of the girl children to survive. Again, these are the areas where women’s opportunity to education is awfully throttled. Again, these are the areas where children belonging to the poorer classes, i.e, belonging to the lower social order—low caste, Musalmans, etc are vulnerable to severe under nutrition.

It was the basis of Justice Sachar’s view of democracy that guided him seeing all these aspects comprehensively; his taking side of the religious minorities has not only come from the respect for plurality but he has also come from his hugely drawing from the fundamental idea of human being’s basic capability to be something by doing something. Alas, India’s practice of democracy did not quite follow the line of practice of democracy, based upon universal value of justice. And, people are paying the price now.

The obscurantist India that has not ensured the rights of her girl children to survive is now on the road to physically eliminate the religious minorities, especially Musalmans, Dalits and Adivasis with fragile economic background. Let us take a look at the recent Gau-tandav. One cannot miss the connection of the victims’ vulnerability and their being easy prey. It is not hard to derive from the descriptions of the incidences that the victims—both Musalmans and Dalits—are forced to come out to streets, which they know for sure to be unsafe for them, in order to pursue their livelihood. This is particularly true for the migrant labourers (Mohammad Afrazul and Saker Ali of Malda in Rajasthan in 2017 among several others), dairy farmers (Pehlu Khan of Alwar is just one example), cattle traders (Sheikh Naim, Sheikh Sajju, Sheikh Siraj, of Jharkhand among several cases in Jharkhand, Bihar, UP, Karnataka, and West Bengal), poor dalits (the latest victim being Mukesh Vaniya of Rajkot, Gujarat), whose livelihood security is contingent to their taking the risk of exposing themselves to violent attacks—they have to be on the street, away from their home, community, safe neighbourhood.

Statistics show an alarmingly rising number of hate killing between 2014-18: out of a total 143 mob attacks between 2015 September 15 and 2018 August 2 share of cow related killing forms 52% ; and of all victims of all mob violence Musalmans and Dalits form 41% and 19 % respectively. The map of hate attacks encompasses Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat—all BJP ruled states—horribly prominently; again this map converges well with one of “determined” resistance to positive change regarding the social views on girl children and women, let alone the lower castes and Musalmans. Areas which are so zealous about worshiping-and making others worship-the Gau-mata appear terribly cruel to the future matas-the girl children, and horrendously neglectful about the present matas-the women in general.

Hate killings and communal riots have a classical pattern where the poor the population is the higher the chance of its becoming the victim. Notwithstanding the classical nature of riots or mass violence being very much alive I think the present situation has gathered some newer-and more dangerous-dimensions. Unlike in 1943-48, the Hindutwavadi forces are very strong, and they have managed to decentralise the Hindu-rashtra idea across the localities. They have successfully established village level Hindu rashtra in parts of the country, like Gujarat, Muzaffarnagar of Uttar Pradesh, or Delhi-Haryana border. Musalmans have been evicted from village after village, and are left to live upon the mercy of the rejuvenated Hindu-rashtravadi neighbour. Even the well-to-do Musalmans are in danger. The world knows how the physicist and human rights activist Professor Bandukwala’s house was ransacked in Barodra. Take the example of West Bengal. That in the city of Calcutta, Musalman MBBS doctors have received threat to leave a flat in a posh neighbourhood, which has turned “Hindu”, is not unrelated to the democratic deficit. Based on empirical data collected through an extensive survey of households a public report, “Living Reality of Muslims in West Bengal” published in 2016, shows how bulk of Musalmans of the state are being deprived from the publicly committed services—education, health, employment, social security, and so on. It is true that the deprivations occur not in the line of religion, but in the line of social injustice. Dalits and adivasis, and other groups of the population face similar discriminations. Owing to the lack of opportunities Musalmans, are severely under-represented in the upper echelon of the society—public offices, universities, media, and so on. This, inter alia, historically constructed religion based distance led to the strengthening of the identity based differences. Thus, the actual injustices can and often do give way to divide the citizens psychologically. Again, the present Hinutdva-political enterprise of anti-Muslaman hate-trade has drawn substantially from the general deprivations that the lower rung of the majority Hindu face. Huge vacuum in fulfilling the constitutional guaranteeing the basic rights of the citizens, opportunities to flourish, is being filled through hate-based programme that severely violate another constitutional guarantee—the right to life of the population in general and the minorities in particular.

In Amartya Sen’s words:
Democracy is a guarantee of process. But offers no guarantee as to how that that process will be pursued and what will come of it. If you don’t do anything, you won’t get anything…. At some level democracy was to involve majority rule and free voting. That’s the point at which someone like Samuel Huntington would like to stop. I would like to go further. It must also include minority rights, which are part of the institutional structure, and the protection of public discussion—free public discussion, free media and so on. Now, these two requirements are institutional. But the third aspect is not purely institutional—it’s the requirement that people use public reasoning; democracy would be more active the more we use public reasoning in an open way. Now, if the latter doesn’t obtain but the first two do, is it a democracy or not?…I’d say, it is a democracy but it’s not doing very well. That’s what I’d say about India today.

Resorting only to institutions, and not paying heed to their functioning—how they work, whether they work the way they were devised to, whether justice has been seen to be done—is now taking its toll. It is threatening the existence of the institutions—from legal institutions like the Suprme Court, financial institutions like the Reserve Bank of India, educational institutions like the Universities, and most of all the parliament, and the constitution is in danger. The very idea of India is in danger.

Justice Sachar fought all his life to make democracy meaningful, so that through public reasoning and reasoned action the country could make its institutions more robust, equitable, and champions of universal human values. He was an uncompromising fighter for justice and democracy, equality and freedom. He nourished in his heart and mind the essentiality of Indian plurality and its secular traditions. Born, brought up and educated in the intellectually vibrant environment of Lahore Justice Sachar trained himself not only as a legal practitioner—an able heir of the legal family he was born into, but also built himself up as a practising democrat. Well-known as he is for presiding over the Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, rightly being famous as Sachar Committee Report, he left numerous footmarks along his journey. The non-conformity that showed its first sign in his taking part in 1963 in the battle against corruption and mal-administration of the then Chief Minister of Punjab Pratap Singh Kairon, has grew over time, making him ardently involved in series of movements for civil liberty, human rights, equality and justice. At this precarious time when Indian democracy is in danger; the core idea of India—its plurality and tolerance—is facing violent attacks; aggressive programmes of destroying the institutions—the constitution, the judiciary, the parliament—are being maddeningly pursued, one must draw strength from Justice Sachar’s ideological commitment and his lifelong practice of Indian-ness built not over a geographical base but on the philosophical eternity of the meaning of human being. Undeniable as his individual excellence was, Justice Sachar was a product of an India that based its philosophical belief on universal human flourishing, an India that built up its institutions on the core values of freedom. But it was also India that resisted to severe its tie with obscurantism, divisiveness, and annihilation of human dignity. Any tribute to Justice Sachar requires commitment to save the idea of India—a plural India free from divisiveness, obscurantism, and oppression—that he cultivated so well in his mind and took all the pain to embed it in day-to-day practice.

Original Published Link

From refusing to kow-tow to Indira Gandhi’s dictates during the Emergency in 1975 to fighting for Mumbai slum dwellers’ housing rights in 2000 to heading what came to be called the Sachar Committee, which looked into the socio-economic marginalisation of India’s largest minority and submitted its report in 2006, Justice Sachar never shied away from a battle, whatever the consequences. Thus, when he lost the battle for life on April 20, the unanimous opinion was that in these dark times, with challenges confronting Muslims, Christians and Dalits, his was the comforting shoulder the nation needed. But that was not to be.

However, much before he breathed his last at Fortis Hospital in New Delhi following a bout of pneumonia, Justice Sachar had ensured that the lives of those affected by his judgments and his many battles would be that much better. Until the end, he was a fearless crusader. After Narendra Modi’s epic victory in 2014, many retired judges, bureaucrats, cricketers, film stars and authors started singing paeans to him. They stopped short of calling him an avatar. Gradually, the nation slipped into “Hail Modi or Quit India” syndrome, as Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders were wont to periodically remind their opponents. Justice Sachar, though, stood up to be counted. Refusing to play the courtier, he pointed out that the ruling dispensation had feet of clay and ugly pockmarks. Just last year, when the Hindutva hardliner Yogi Adityanath was sworn in as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, he pulled no punches in criticising the decision. While less sharp people called Modi the only face of the BJP, Justice Sachar made bold to state that Modi was not the only face. Rather, he was only the face of an ugly, hate-filled narrative of Hindutva fuelled from Nagpur.

Fearlessly taking on the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), he went back to Gujarat and wondered how Narendra Modi, post-2002 riots, was suddenly touted as a development man. The reality was that Modi enjoyed corporate backing and cared not to say a word about Muslims languishing in relief camps years after their dwellings were set on fire when he was the Chief Minister of Gujarat. Justice Sachar saw in Adityanath a replay of history. A hate purveyor was once again occupying centre stage.

All through his long and enviably distinguished legal career—he fought his first case in 1952 in Shimla where he enrolled as an advocate before moving to the Supreme Court in 1960—Justice Sachar had the ability to call a spade a spade. When the first United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government headed by Manmohan Singh appointed him in 2005 to head of a committee to examine the socio-economic and educational status of Muslims in India, he came up with an exhaustive 403-page report, which was submitted to Parliament in November 2006. Without prevaricating, Justice Sachar went for the jugular. According to the report his committee submitted, there was greater backwardness among Muslims than even the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. They lagged in education, and their representation in the administrative services and the police was abysmally low. With one report, he took the sting out of the BJP’s claims of appeasement of Muslims and instead showed the minority community to be the most deserving of affirmative action by the state.

All this did not endear him to the BJP-led government that came to power in 2014. However, he was not silenced. A little before Modi became the Prime Minister, his government in Gujarat had questioned the Sachar Committee’s legal standing. The Gujarat government in 2013 had termed the minority scholarship scheme of the Centre as arbitrary and discriminatory, submitting before the Supreme Court that the Sachar Committee was unconstitutional and its target was to help Muslims only. The mask was off.

The affidavit stated: “The Sachar Committee is neither constitutional nor statutory. It has not taken into consideration other religious minorities, that is, the Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Parsis. Therefore, it cannot form the basis of the scheme.” Justice Sachar stood his ground. If Dalits could be helped, he asked, why could the same yardstick not be used for poor Muslims? “Like any other community, Muslims are citizens of this country. There is an urgent need for an equality commission. Muslims have been part of this country for centuries, large numbers of Muslims have converted in the past for different reasons,” he argued.

Original Published Link

As as a judge of the Delhi High Court, the petition filed by human rights activists seeking justice in the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom matter came before him and he issued a notice to the police. But the roster was changed and the case transferred away from his Bench – no doubt because the then Congress Government knew that he would defend justice instead of protecting the powerful accused! Justice Sachar spoke about this episode often.

After his retirement, all his life, Justice Sachar was a tireless campaigner for justice, working for the People’s Union of Civil Liberties, heading fact-finding teams into incidents of communal and anti-Dalit violence, and writing regularly on every democratic concern, right till the very last months of his life. As late as 23 March 2018, we all received an article from his pen titled ‘India Needs Draupadi Not Savitri’ reflecting on the rights of women, and other issues concerning democracy. It is worth quoting an excerpt from that piece:

“the Socialist party of J.P. and Dr. Lohia had proposed a policy regarding police firing in independent India. It was a straight one namely that in a free democratic country like India, any police firing leading to the killing of citizens must automatically lead to the resignation of the State government. The leaders should promise that in Independent India, no State government or Central Government should have legal sanction to open fire on the crowds. And if a situation reaches that stage it shows the complete incompetency of State government which should lead immediately to the resignation of the government.

In fact Socialist Party had to face this situation early in free India. …The Socialist Party was even then able to form a government in only then State of Travancore with Chief Minister Thanu Pillai. Some time later there was agitation in Travancore and police firing took place leading to the death of some demonstrators. Immediately Dr. Lohia and many others like us demanded resignation of our government of Thanu Pillai. I am still of the view that in free India police killing of the demonstrators by police must automatically lead to resignation of the government if human right violations are to be avoided – and this has been proved by subsequent events in India, as is shown by official figures released by Government of India that at least over 50,000 people have been killed by the police firings  – this happened because correct human right standards were not accepted and followed, namely the automatic resignation of State government in such an eventuality.”

Justice Sachar headed the Sachar Committee appointed by the UPA Government that published the path-breaking report on the status of Muslims in India. The report painstakingly documented the extremely weak economic and social status of Muslims in India and low Muslim representation in education and dignified, secure employment, putting paid to allegations of ‘Muslim appeasement’ and making a convincing and irrefutable case for affirmative action.

Justice Sachar was among the eminent speakers to speak at a Convention demanding Justice for Bathani Tola in April 2012, against the acquittal of all the accused in the Bathani Tola massacre case. He also spoke at a National Convention organized by the All India Left Coordination (AILC) to commemorate the centenary of the Ghadar movement.

Justice Sachar’s life is one to be celebrated and emulated. His voice will be sorely missed in times when judicial accountability is facing a grave crisis in India.

Original Published Link

Paying emotional tribute on the sad demise of late Justice Rajindar Sachar, senior journalist Seema Mustafa wrote, “One of our finest has gone. Justice Rajinder Sachar has left us, fairly suddenly without too much notice except that delivered by age. A mentor, a friend, a man whose doors were always open he will be sorely missed. He did not really care — unlike Delhi’s famous — whether he was invited to speak or not, if he supported the cause he was there in the audience, listening attentively. For many of us he was the person we turned to when the times seemed very bleak and dark, just to hear Justice Sachar tell us that it will get better. The wisdom of experience and age gave his voice authority, and lifted spirits when little else would”.

Rajindar Sachar was born on 22nd December 1923 at Lahore in undivided India. His father Lala Bhim Sen Sachar was a well-known Congress leader and later become Chief Minister of Punjab. He educated at D.A.V. High School in Lahore, then went on to Government College Lahore and Law College, Lahore. During his student days he was attached to National movement and joined Congress Socialist Party. After the partition of the country he came to Delhi and joined Socialist party.

In May 1949, the Socialist Party under Rammanohar Lohia’s leadership held a demonstration in front of the Nepal embassy in New Delhi to protest against the autocratic and repressive regime of the Rana government in the Himalayan kingdom. There was violence and the police used teargas shells to disperse the mob.

Lohia was arrested for violating Section 144 CRPC. Young Rajinder Sachar was also arrested with Lohia and remained in jail for a month and a half. According to Sachar sahib “It was during that imprisonment that Nehru and Indira sent a basket of mangoes to Lohia. Sardar Patel was very angry and wrote to Nehru expressing his annoyance over sending mangoes to a person who had violated the law. Nehru in his quiet way told him that politics and personal relationships should not be mixed up”. It was a first movement and arrest in free India where Socialist offered civil disobedience”.

On April 22, 1952 Rajinder Sachar enrolled as an advocate at Simla. On December 8, 1960 he became an advocate in the Supreme Court of India, engaging in a wide variety of cases concerning civil, criminal and revenue issues. But at the same time he was actively associated with the Socialist Party led by Lohia. In 1963 a breakaway group of legislators left the Congress party and formed the independent “Prajatantra Party”. Sachar helped this group prepare memoranda levelling charges of corruption and mal-administration against Pratap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of Punjab. Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das was appointed to look into the charges, and in June 1964 found Kairon guilty on eight counts.

On February 12, 1970 Rajinder Sachar was appointed Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court for a two-year term, and on February 12, 1972 he was reappointed for another two years. On 5 July 1972 he was appointed a permanent Judge of the High Court. He was acting chief justice of the Sikkim High court from 16 May 1975 until 10 May 1976, when he was made a judge in the Rajasthan High Court. The transfer from Sikkim to Rajasthan was made without Sachar’s consent during the Emergency (June 1975 – March 1977) when elections and civil liberties were suspended.

Sachar was one of the judges that refused to follow the bidding of the Emergency establishment, and who were transferred as a form of punishment. After the restoral of democracy, on 9 July 1977 he was transferred back to the Delhi High Court.

In June 1977, Justice Sachar was appointed by the government to chair a committee that reviewed the Companies Act and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, submitting an encyclopaedic report on the subject in August 1978. Sachar’s committee recommended a major overhaul of the corporate reporting system, and particularly of the approach to reporting on social impacts. In May 1984, Rajinder Sachar reviewed the Industrial Disputes Act, including the backlog of cases. His report was scathing. He said “A more horrendous and despairing situation can hardly be imagined… the load at present in the various Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals is so disproportionate to what can conceivably be borne … that the arrears can only go on increasing if the present state of affairs is not improved… It is harsh and unjust to both the employers and employees if the cases continue to remain undecided for years”.

In November 1984, Justice Sachar issued notice to the police on a writ petition filed by Public Union for Democratic Rights on the basis of evidence collected from 1984 Sikh riot victims, asking FIRs to be registered against leaders named in affidavits of victims. However, in the next hearing the case was removed from the Court of Mr. Sachar and brought before two other Judges, who impressed petitioners to withdraw their petition in the national interest, which they declined, then dismissed the petition.

As an Indian lawyer and a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Sachar sahib was a member of United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. He has served as a counsel for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties. He chaired the Sachar Committee, constituted by the Government of India, which submitted a report on the social, economic and educational status of Muslims in India.

Rajinder Sachar was one of the authors of a report issued on 22 April 1990 on behalf of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and others entitled “Report on Kashmir Situation”. In January 1992 Sachar was one of the signatories to an appeal to all Punjabis asking them to ensure that the forthcoming elections were free and were seen to be free. They asked the people to ensure there was no violence, coercion or unfair practices that would prevent the people from electing the government of their choice. Rajinder Sachar was appointed to a high-level Advisory Committee chaired by Chief Justice Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi to review the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and determine whether structural changes and amendments were needed. The committee prepared a draft amendment Bill incorporating its recommendations. These included changes to the membership of the National Human Rights Commission, changes to procedures to reduce delays in following up recommendations and a broadening of the commission’s scope. The recommendations were submitted to the Home Affairs ministry on 7 March 2000.

In April 2003, as counsel  for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Sachar argued before the Supreme Court of India that the Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act (POTA) should be quashed since it violated fundamental rights. On 24 November 2002, the police arrested twenty six people in the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu, and on 10 January 2003 they were placed under POTA by the government on the grounds that they were members of the Radical Youth League of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist). On 26 August 2004, still being held without trial, the detainees began a hunger strike. Sachar led a team of human rights activists who visited them in jail on 15 September 2004 and persuaded them to end the hunger strike. POTA was repealed on 10 November 2004. However, all the POTA provisions were incorporated in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. In October 2009 Sachar called for abolition of these laws.

He said, “Terrorism is there, I admit, but in the name of terror probe, many innocent people are taken into custody without registering a charge and are being detained for long period”.

Rajinder Sachar, who had formerly been a United Nations special rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing, headed a mission that investigated housing rights in Kenya for the Housing and Land Rights Committee of the Habitat International Coalition. In its report issued in March 2000, the mission found that the Kenyan government had failed to meet its international obligations regarding protection of its citizens’ housing rights. The report described misallocation of public land, evictions and land-grabbing by corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.

In March 2005, Justice Rajinder Sachar was appointed to a committee to study the condition of the Muslim community in India and to prepare a comprehensive report on their social, economic and educational status. On 17 November 2006 he presented the report, entitled “Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India”, to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The report showed the growing social and economic insecurity that had been imposed on Muslims since independence sixty years earlier. It found that the Muslim population, estimated at over 138 million in 2001, were under-represented in the civil services, police, military and in politics. Muslims were more likely to be poor, illiterate, unhealthy and to have trouble with the law than other Indians. Muslims were accused of being against the Indian state, of being terrorists, and politicians who tried to help them risked being accused of “appeasing” them.

The Sachar Committee recommendations aimed to promote inclusion of the diverse communities in India and their equal treatment. It emphasised initiatives that were general rather than specific to any one community. It was a landmark in the debate on the Muslim question in India. The speed of implementation would naturally depend on political factors including the extent of backlash from Hindutva groups. The Sachar Committee Report recommended setting up an institutional structure for an Equal Opportunity Commission.

In March 2003, Sachar was a signatory to a statement that condemned the US-led invasion of Iraq, calling it “unprovoked, unjustified and violative of international law and the United Nations Charter”. Other signatories included Shanti Bhushan, Pavani Parameswara Rao, Rajeev Dhavan, Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan.

He was a Judge who set an example. That after retirement Judges did not need to go into holes, and in fact were required to play a major role in keeping India on the Constitutional track. He spoke fearlessly, boldly, did not look for favours from the establishment regardless of who was in power, and as a result rubbed all the wrong way saying when we used to laugh, “well I am with the people and that’s all that matters.”

One does not really know where to begin, or for that matter end this tribute. Does one remember him for the Sachar report on the status of the Muslim community in India that created a storm as it was an honest and starkly revealing document; or for his stand on civil liberties for all; or for his criticism of established political parties; or for his love for the Indian Constitution that was always so visible; or for his gentle enquiries when he knew an individual was troubled; or for his willingness to walk the extra mile at any time of the day or night to help a person in need or for a cause; or for his consistency in advocating peace in South Asia; or for his fearlessness in taking on the communalists; or for his strong support for gender equality and justice.

By the end Justice Sachar was visibly frail, a little bent with age, and clearly with many off days that he made sure none of us really knew about. This would not prevent him from attending meetings, signing statements and organising fact finding reports till his last days.

One never heard him complain about his health. One never heard even a note of pessimism in his voice. One never heard him talk about his ailments or his problems. He was always there for everyone else, for India and her people. In these years one did, however, hear some pessimism in his voice. A ‘what will happen to our country’ tone, with worries that he would share occasionally. Excerpts from an article he wrote for The Citizen in December 2017:

Justice Sachar’s admiration for Ram Manohar Lohia spanned his life, never diminishing. But he never allowed that to come in his way of relationships with those who were perhaps very critical of his mentor. As he said, “your view is yours, mine is mine. ”And would then tell us stories about the differences between Jawaharlal Nehru and Lohia that never came in the way of mutual respect.

There are not many left now who say it like you did Justice Sachar, without mincing words, or looking over your shoulder, or bothering how the chattering classes would react. You looked for no favours, no positions, no awards. Respect Sir, Always!!!

Original Published Link

Justice Sachar, as he was popularly known, delivered a momentous report in 2006 on the status of Muslims in contemporary India. The report was commissioned by the Congress government to ascertain the social, economic and political status of the country’s approximately 180 million Muslims.

The statistics-rich, 403-page report shattered many myths about the Muslim minority, showing that the community fared worse than other groups, according to social, economic and political development indicators. It recommended greater allocation of resources and legal protection to them as equal citizens of a democratic state. The report deflated the Congress assertion that it was the protector of the minorities while exposing as false the BJP rhetoric of Muslim appeasement at the expense of Hindus. The report also raised awareness among educated Muslims, igniting a debate and paving the way for community advocacy for equity in the democratic system.

When it was reported in 1991 that the Rajiv Gandhi government was tapping the phones of several politicians, he successfully argued in the Supreme Court in 1995 that it was a gross violation of individual privacy, which led to the formulation of guidelines for the surveillance of citizens. He relentlessly fought against oppressive laws like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which he said were used to suppress minorities and inhibit people’s movement.

As a rights advocate, he firmly believed that the confidence of minorities in the impartiality of the government is the acid test of whether India is a truly just state. He spoke out strongly against the victimization of minorities in recent times, especially in the name of cow protection, pointing out that it was preposterous to target Muslims while the majority of the beef export business is controlled by Hindus. He took a special interest in Jammu and Kashmir and criticised the government of India’s policies, which have led to human-rights violations, but rejected violence as a solution, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and friendship between India and Pakistan.

Another major concern for him was the death penalty in a country where the poor cannot afford legal fees and are therefore more likely to be victims of it. Filing a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court, he argued against it, but the court declined to interfere, maintaining that it was a parliamentary matter. He later presented a petition to Parliament calling for its repeal.

Sachar considered criminals in politics a serious threat to democracy and argued that citizens have a right to know if candidates are offenders prior to elections, which led to electoral reforms in 2004.

A similar initiative he was involved in was the NOTA (none of the above) ballot box provision, which allows citizens to reject all unworthy candidates.

Female empowerment was close to his heart. He considered women to be oppressed and said they are denied their rightful share of power in society and wanted them to be assertive in their demand for one-third of seats in legislatures.

He was simple, graceful and gentle, and made himself easily accessible to human rights activists in need of legal advice across the country. Despite his age, he traveled widely to show solidarity with victims of state highhandedness, be it a demolition drive against the homeless or police firing on peaceful agitators.

He assigned more importance to his association with the PUCL than his judicial status, asserting that civil liberties movements energize India’s democracy.

Despite his status and accomplishments, he was self-effacing, free of ego and grounded by his humanity. He accepted nothing in exchange for his services, declining Manmohan Singh government’s offer of the Padma Vibhushan award.

Sachar did not seem to be troubled by his imminent death, likening it to the changing of the seasons. As I conversed with him a few weeks back at his home, he kept his moonlight smile as if recalling Walter Landor’s lines:

I strove with none, for none was worth my strife.

Original Published Link