Targeting speech through new laws and dragging dissenting voices to court have created a suffocative environment
By Geetartha Pathak
The true spirit of democracy lies in freedom of speech. In India, free speech has become costlier with every passing day. Dissent is no longer treated as a virtue. Questioning the suitability or relevance of a piece of a new law in parliament is now being perceived as an inexcusable insult to the House. Targeting speech through new regulations, loopholes of some laws and dragging the dissenting voice to the court of law by filing lawsuits in distant local courts have created a suffocative environment with chilling effects on freedom of expression.
New Criminal Laws
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on 6 July lashed out at Congress leader P Chidambaram over his comment that the three new criminal laws were “drafted by part-timers”, terming it as “inexcusable” and urging him to withdraw his “derogatory, defamatory and insulting” observation. The Vice President’s outburst against Chidambaram was taken by many as unproportional as the three new criminal laws have been criticised by many, including several States, lawyers, former judges and journalists.
The three important pieces of laws were enacted without much debate in Parliament in the last winter session of the previous Lok Sabha when almost all the members of the opposition were suspended. The drafts of the three criminal laws too were not sent to the Law Commission for its scrutiny. In our country, traditionally all important pieces of law are sent to the Law Commission for its scrutiny. By using the word ‘part-timers’ the veteran Congress leader critically expressed that these new criminal laws were not drafted carefully.
Moving Court
A complaint was filed in a Bihar court against Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha, on July 2 over his recent remark in Parliament. On July 1, during the Motion of Thanks, Rahul Gandhi while attacking the ruling BJP for allegedly spreading violence and hate said: “Those who call themselves Hindus indulge in hate and violence round the clock.” It is to be mentioned that on February 20, 2024, a special court in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, granted bail to Rahul Gandhi in a 2018 defamation case. Now he has been asked to appear before the Sultanpur court on July 26 for making allegedly derogatory remarks against Home Minister Amit Shah.
Restrictions which are susceptible to political manipulation should be an exception and freedom should be the rule
Gandhi said the BJP’s president was an accused in a murder case. Amit Shah was then the president of the BJP. Rahul Gandhi’s comment referred to a case where Shah was discharged by a CBI special court in Mumbai in connection with a 2005 fake encounter case which occurred during his tenure as the Minister of State for Home in Gujarat. Instead of dragging political opponents for their comments or jibes to the court of law by the power that be, a debate in public would have been a more befitting gesture in a democracy.
The UP police recently registered an FIR against journalists Zakir Ali Tyagi and Wasim Akram Tyagi for reporting the alleged lynching on social media. Instead of registering a case against the accused, the UP police seem busy teaching the journalists a lesson for reporting the facts. According to the FIR copy from July 5 shared by Zakir Ali Tyagi on X, the Thana Bhavan police from UP’s Shamli district have booked the journalists under Sections 196 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (equivalent to 153A of Indian Penal Code), which punishes acts of promoting enmity between different groups, and Section 353 of BNS (equivalent of Section 505 of the previous IPC) which criminalises statements “conducing to public mischief.”
Strangely, the messengers are punished under ‘promoting enmity between different groups’ law while the powerful political party and their cohorts themselves are promoting enmity and encouraging violence by inciting people with hate speeches. Mob lynching is nothing new in the rule of the BJP targeting Muslims and other minorities, happening in a communally surged environment.
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (UAPA), Money Laundering Act, 2002, (PMLA), which was passed during the then NDA regime and criminal defamation laws are now being amended and randomly used against journalists, political opponents and social activists. The UAPA is an old Act enacted 47 years ago but the BJP amended the law in 2019, granting authorities the ability to declare an individual a “terrorist” before any crime is proven in court.
Suppressing Voices
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act and its regulations were also amended in 2019, 2022 and 2023. These laws are sharpened and being weaponised against political opponents, social activists and journalists. The open exchange of ideas and diverse opinions is the cornerstone of democracy, and the world’s largest democracy cannot afford to avoid them and suppress dissenting voices. The increasing intolerance towards criticism and dissent in India has already raised concern among democratic circles.
Raids on the BBC offices in New Delhi and Mumbai three weeks after the broadcaster released a documentary critical of Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, raids on NewsClick, an independent news portal, and arrest of its founder veteran journalist Prabir Purkayastha alleging that the site had received foreign money to publish pro-China propaganda, recent granting of the police permission by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi to prosecute activist and prize-winning author Arundhati Roy, who was charged under the UAPA, are not indicative of world’s largest democracy’s good health. Without subscribing to the views of Roy on Kashmir, we can argue that since her comment on Kashmir 14 years ago has had no impact on the Valley’s situation, her prosecution will put a further load on the already overburdened courts.
Democracy will only flourish when we explain liberty with John Stuart Mill’s marketplace of ideas. The theory of the architect of the idea of liberty advocates unbounded freedom of speech, positing that every voice, no matter its viewpoint, enriches a dynamic marketplace of the idea of liberty. It is unfortunate that in our country ideas are either imposed, kept in solitary confinement, or killed. We need a pluralistic democracy in India, where diverse perspectives are recognised as vital to a healthy democratic society.
The legal system of the country should provide constitutional protections against the abridgement of speech and expression. In a liberal democracy, as far as freedom of expression is concerned, restrictions which are susceptible to political manipulation should be an exception and freedom should be the rule.
(The author is a senior journalist from Assam)