Granting relief to a Delhi-based woman summoned for questioning by Kolkata police over a social media post that attracted an FIR, the SC underscored that it exists to protect ordinary citizens from harassment by the state. The court, rightly, strictured the “chilling message” sent when police in various cities resort to similar summoning of people from across the country. The current mood across governments of “You want freedom of speech, we will teach you a lesson” was certainly not what our freedom fighters or Constitution drafters had in mind. Yet, political dissent and activism facing pushback in the form of misguided IPC, NSA, UAPA cases are increasingly being reported.

In the present case, the woman had allegedly criticised the state government for non-enforcement of lockdown norms, with respect to a particular community in a Kolkata locality. Police responded by booking her for inciting hatred against the community under IPC. Instead of the woman being dragged to Kolkata, police now have the option of visiting her in Delhi to question her. The irony of ordinary citizens being subjected to so much harassment for criticism of authorities is hard to miss.

The police harassment indicates a maximalist approach gaining favour with authorities. The rise of populist netas claiming to speak for ordinary people but with no tolerance when people actually do speak up, and whose repression of dissent is facilitated by the existence of many draconian laws, is an unfortunate contemporary phenomenon. Strong institutions, especially constitutional and lower courts, can become the bulwark within the state apparatus against such executive overreach. This places great responsibility on India’s judiciary to act promptly on rights violations.

Quashing a sedition case against a journalist who accused the Uttarakhand CM of corruption, the Uttarakhand HC said: “Unless public functionaries are criticised, democracy cannot be strengthened … if dissent is suppressed under the sedition law, it would make democracy weak. Criticising the government can never be sedition.” Despite this being the settled law on sedition, police are keener to follow political diktats rather than umpteen judicial pronouncements quashing sedition cases as well as narrowly restricting its interpretation. The time has come for the Supreme Court to re-examine whether the colonial-era sedition law is compatible with constitutional freedoms, given its frequent abuse.

Linkedin

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.

END OF ARTICLE