LIMA VARGHESE- Supreme Court on hearing the petition charging Farooq Abdulla, J&K former CM, anti-national and seditious, said “Dissent is not sedition, can’t try citizens for anti-government views”. The decision of the Supreme Court on the issue of sedition is in tune with democratic norms and assures of freedom to dissent, as guaranteed in the Indian constitution. Sedition was retained in IPC against SCs 1962 Kedar Nath Singh judgment by strictly mandating that the police proceed only when there is incitement of violence. Disregarding this judgment many legitimate instances of dissent are getting criminalized. In the recent past it has become very common that anyone disagrees or dissents with the government policies is accused of being seditious and anti-national.
The freedom of expression is curtailed by the abuse of sedition law. The latest abuse of sedition law was the arrest, police custody and prosecution of Dish Ravi, a young climate activist from Bangalore. Media reports on a daily basis the courts hearing bail pleas in sedition cases filed by the police in different states.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking prosecution of Farooq Abdulla for sedition and being anti-national for expressing his views against the Centre’s decision to scrap the special status given to J&K under the article 370. The court said “expression of view which is dissent from the decision taken by the Central government itself cannot be said to be seditious”. The Court came out heavily on the petitioner for their plea to disqualify Abdulla from Parliament for making an anti-national and seditious statement. The petitioner failed to produce the statement of Abdulla which the Court demanded. The court said, “We must penalize people for filing such petitions for publicity. The petitioner has nothing to do with the subject matter and this is clearly a case of public interest litigation”. The Court asked the petitioner if he is aware that the issue of scrapping article 370 is pending in this Court. The court imposed a fine of rupees fifty thousand.
The Supreme Court had squashed section 66A of the Information Technology Act which was similarly used against those who dissented and curbed the freedom of free speech. Taking into serious consideration the abuse of sedition law, the SC can choose to strike it down.
The downgrading of India from “Free” to “Partly Free” country by the Washington-based Freedom House, a global democracy watchdog, in its latest ranking, is a setback to India at the international level. “Freedom in the world 2021” report cites “Increased pressure on human rights organizations, rising intimidation of academics and journalists, and a spate of bigoted attacks, including lynching aimed at Muslims since 2014” as reasons for India’s decline from “Free” to “partially free” status. While India’s score of 34/40 in political rights tallied with many ‘free’ countries, a dismal of 33/60 score in civil liberties dragged it down to the level of “partly free” countries with failing democracies.
All governments have the tendency to abuse the law of sedition because no government likes criticism. As the right to dissent is the lifeblood of democracy, the members of civil society have to approach the judiciary to remove it.
KUDOS TO DELHI COURT VERDICT IN DISHA RAVI’S TOOLKIT CHARGE
