Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed, a prominent figure in the Indian judiciary, shares a unique connection to the country’s constitutional history. His father, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, was the President of India who declared the Emergency on June 25, 1975. This controversial period saw the suspension of constitutional rights—a decision heavily influenced by the then Council of Ministers. In a candid interview with Bar & Bench’s Debayan Roy, Justice Ahmed addresses long-standing rumors, his legal career, and his views on contemporary religious issues that intersect with the law.
Controversy Over the Alleged Note
For decades, a story circulated about a private note penned by his father regarding the Emergency declaration, purportedly destroyed by Justice Ahmed. Clarifying the matter, Justice Ahmed states, “There is an error in your question. First of all, he never wrote a note. Secondly, since he didn’t write a note, I didn’t destroy it. Third, he used to write a diary, which still exists.” Thus, the myth of the destroyed note was firmly debunked.
Reflections on the Emergency and Judicial Philosophy
During the Emergency, Justice Ahmed was a student in England. Reflecting on that era, he remarked, “I don’t think that is a very happy period for India… I hope that it never happens again.” Despite the historical ties, he maintains that his judicial decisions were guided solely by the Constitution, emphasizing the oath judges take “to decide without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
Legal Mentorship and Historical Connections
Justice Ahmed’s first legal mentor, Siddhartha Shankar Ray, played a pivotal role in advising then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on the Emergency. Despite working closely with him, Justice Ahmed recalls, “I never needed to [talk about it]. He never spoke about it either.” He shares a poignant memory from his father’s funeral, noting Ray’s visible grief.
Balancing Personal Heritage with Judicial Duty
Justice Ahmed’s background is deeply rooted in Muslim tradition, tracing lineage to the Nawabs of Rampur and poet Mirza Ghalib. Yet, he insists, “I never let it interfere with my background, with my decision-making in the courtroom.” He articulates a clear boundary between personal beliefs and professional responsibilities, which he believes did not cost him in his judicial career.
More Read
Addressing Contemporary Religious Issues
On the topic of religious matters, such as the hijab and lynching issues, Justice Ahmed observes a troubling escalation in societal tensions. He states, “Courts are under greater pressure to decide these issues. I hope that they are up to the task.” Furthermore, he discusses the Supreme Court’s landmark Triple Talaq judgment, asserting that existing legal precedents already deemed the practice invalid.
The Role of Courts in Religious Affairs
Justice Ahmed emphasizes that while courts can intervene in religious practices contrary to public order and morality, they should refrain from encroaching on purely religious matters. Using sati as an example, he illustrates, “If there is a similar practice… the Supreme Court can definitely look into it.” However, he questions the relevance of court interference in personal expressions like the hijab, unless they violate public order.
In conclusion, Justice Ahmed’s remarks provide a nuanced perspective on balancing constitutional duties with personal convictions, while addressing the evolving challenges courts face in adjudicating religious issues in India.
