Right to dissent | SabrangIndia News Related to Human Rights Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:12:05 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Right to dissent | SabrangIndia 32 32 The Price of Dissent: In India, demanding accountability in times of grief must toe the line https://sabrangindia.in/the-price-of-dissent-in-india-demanding-accountability-in-times-of-grief-must-toe-the-line/ Tue, 29 Apr 2025 13:12:05 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=41513 From folk songs to Instagram posts to digital newsrooms, voices of resistance are under attack. FIRs against Neha Singh Rathore, Dr Madri Kakoti, and the shutdown of 4 PM News reflect a deepening free speech crisis in India

The post The Price of Dissent: In India, demanding accountability in times of grief must toe the line appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> In the wake of the tragic terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, a disturbing pattern is emerging—not just in the streets or along the borders, but in India’s courtrooms, police stations, and digital spaces. Rather than confronting the root causes of extremism or addressing lapses in security, the state has turned its gaze inward, cracking down on those who dare to speak truth to power, and demand accountability for their “lapses”. Artist Neha Singh Rathore, known for her bold Bhojpuri satire, and feminist academic Dr Madri Kakoti, better known online as Dr Medusa on X (formerly Twitter), now face FIRs for merely expressing their views—criticising the state’s response in light of the Pahalgam terror attack, and questioning the broader culture of impunity. More than anything, both have sharply questioned, in their respective and inimitable styles, government role in (not) responding to intelligence warnings of a possible terror attack.

But they are not alone. In Lucknow, the newsroom of 4 PM, a digital Hindi-language outlet known for its critical reporting on the government, was forcibly taken off YouTube. Its editor, Sanjay Sharma, told Newslaudry that he had been asking government questions regarding national security, especially after the Pahalgam terror attack. Together, these incidents point to a growing climate of fear, where artistic expression, academic freedom, and independent journalism are seen as threats to national order rather than pillars of a healthy democracy.

The cases of Rathore, Kakoti, and 4 PM are not isolated. They are symptoms of a systemic assault on free speech, emboldened by a new legal regime—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—that revives colonial-era sedition in a new, more ambiguous form. This is not just about individual persecution. It is about the shrinking space for dissent in today’s India—and the urgent need to defend it.

‘Sedition’ for singing truths: Folk singer Neha Singh Rathore targeted

In a striking example of the state’s growing hostility towards dissenters and cultural voices that challenge official narratives, Bhojpuri folk singer Neha Singh Rathore has been booked under charges of sedition and digital offences in Uttar Pradesh for her social media posts on the April 22 terror attack in Pahalgam. The charges come under Section 152 of the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises acts “endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”, and under various sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR, registered at Hazratganj police station in Lucknow, stems from a complaint by one Abhay Pratap Singh. The complaint claims that Rathore’s posts could provoke communal tensions and alleges that her content is being picked up and circulated by social media handles associated with Pakistani political organisations. That a popular singer known for biting social satire has been accused of jeopardising national unity, based on speculation that Pakistani accounts shared her video, lays bare the sheer fragility of the state’s definition of “security” and “sovereignty”.

What did Rathore say? Legitimate questions, politically inconvenient: As per a report in The Quint, the complaint focuses on three tweets by Rathore and one by an allegedly Pakistan-linked handle that reposted her video. In one tweet, Rathore raised a straightforward question:

“Modi ji was scheduled to visit Jammu on 19 April, but his trip was postponed. Three days later, on 22 April, a terrorist attack took place in Pahalgam, resulting in the death of 27 tourists. On what grounds was Modiji’s Jammu visit postponed? Was there a suspicion of a possible terrorist attack?” (Translated to English)

Another post urged people to question the narrative and look beyond the surface:

“Who could have orchestrated such an attack? Who stands to benefit from it? Think about it, think carefully! Use common sense and tell!”

These are not inflammatory remarks but standard political commentary—critical in tone, but fully within the bounds of democratic discourse. Yet, they have been construed as seditious, dangerous, and anti-national.

The FIR also references a tweet by a Pakistani handle—believed to be affiliated with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party—which reposted a video of Rathore where she called the Pahalgam incident “a failure of intelligence and security under the current administration” and alluded to similar historical instances where terror attacks were politically leveraged during elections.

 

The criminalisation of political dissent: The legal and political implications of this FIR are significant. Section 152 of the BNS, which replaces the colonial-era sedition law under the Indian Penal Code, was touted by the Union government as a modernised, rights-respecting alternative. In practice, however, the section is proving to be just as repressive, if not worse. The language of “sovereignty” and “integrity” has once again become a catch-all net to silence dissent, especially in politically sensitive moments like elections.

The FIR represents an increasingly familiar pattern in BJP-ruled states, especially Uttar Pradesh: anyone who challenges the government’s record—whether on security, governance, or civil rights—is branded a threat to national security, slapped with draconian laws, and subjected to relentless digital vilification. That this treatment is being meted out to a folk singer whose platform is built on satire, regional culture, and grassroots issues, shows just how wide the net of repression has been cast.

Neha Singh Rathore hits back: Rathore, undeterred, released a strong video statement on X (formerly Twitter), accusing the state of using legal intimidation to deflect from its failures:

“The government wants to divert attention by filing an FIR against me. This is not so difficult to understand. If you have the guts, go get the heads of those terrorists. Don’t put the blame of your failure on me.”

 

She further condemned the state’s practice of penalising those who ask questions:

“Their answer to every question is sending a notice, taking away our jobs, filing FIRs, getting us abused, scaring us, and humiliating us. If you call this politics, then what is dictatorship?”

 

In response to the coordinated outrage from the BJP IT cell, Rathore clarified that she has deep personal ties to the armed forces:

“They’re calling me anti-national because a Pakistani handle copied my video. Fourteen members of my family have served in the Indian Army and paramilitary forces. My brother is fighting Naxalites in Chhattisgarh and my uncle fought in the Kargil war.”

 

Her response not only highlights the absurdity of the charges against her but also exposes the selective patriotism of those who weaponise nationalism to silence dissent.

A pattern of targeting: This is not Rathore’s first brush with the law. In July 2023, she faced legal action for posting a cartoon on the horrifying Madhya Pradesh urination incident, where a dominant-caste man was seen urinating on a tribal labourer. Earlier in February 2023, she was served a notice by Kanpur Police for allegedly promoting enmity through the second version of her viral song ‘UP Mein Ka Ba’.

Her songs—rooted in Bhojpuri folk tradition—focus on social issues like unemployment, corruption, gender violence, the dowry system, and declining cultural values. Unlike the sanitised and often apolitical mainstream media and music industry, Rathore’s work is a rare voice of resistance, using wit and melody to speak truth to power.

Her 2020 hit ‘Bihar Mein Ka Ba’ and its 2022 counterpart ‘UP Mein Ka Ba’ gained massive traction precisely because they reflected the frustrations of ordinary people under a regime increasingly allergic to criticism.

Free speech or treason? A dangerous precedent: The booking of Neha Singh Rathore should worry anyone who values free speech, artistic expression, and the right to question authority. It illustrates how the new legal architecture under the BNS is no less authoritarian than the old colonial codes it claims to replace. Vague provisions like Section 152 are now being used not to protect India’s sovereignty, but to shield a powerful ruling party from public scrutiny—especially in moments when its security apparatus appears compromised.

Rather than launching a credible investigation into the Pahalgam attack, the state has found it more convenient to redirect public attention by persecuting artists and intellectuals. By doing so, it reframes criticism as subversion, dissent as sedition, and legitimate questions as threats to national integrity.

Neha Singh Rathore’s case is not an isolated incident—it is a warning. A democracy that cannot tolerate a folk song, a tweet, or a video is no longer secure in its foundations. And when the law is wielded not to protect citizens but to silence them, the real danger to the nation lies not in dissenting voices, but in those who seek to extinguish them.

Targeting the Professor: Dr Medusa booked for ‘sedition’ over social media posts

In a chilling development that underscores the shrinking space for academic and political dissent in India, an FIR has been filed against Dr Madri Kakoti—popularly known as “Dr Medusa” on social media—for posts questioning state actions following the terror attack in Pahalgam. The charges, filed at Hasanganj police station in Lucknow, include sedition-like provisions under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Dr Kakoti, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Lucknow University and a widely followed political commentator online, is accused of posts that allegedly threaten India’s “unity, integrity and sovereignty.” The complaint, filed by Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) leader Jatin Shukla, claims she routinely uses terms such as “saffron terrorists” and that her remarks are being picked up by Pakistani social media handles like @PTI_Promotion—ironically the same handle cited in the FIR against singer Neha Singh Rathore earlier.

The posts that sparked the storm: Dr Kakoti’s recent posts have focused on the alleged atrocities committed against Kashmiris in the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, and she has openly demanded the resignation of Home Minister Amit Shah for what she describes as an “unforgivable failure” of national security. Her posts include commentary on state excesses in Kashmir, communal impunity, and the co-option of terrorism for electoral benefit.

 

While her critique is deeply political and sharply worded, it falls squarely within the realm of democratic free speech and academic independence—particularly in a country where public discourse is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a). Yet, the FIR alleges that her intent is to provoke unrest and “incite riots.” Such extrapolations from political critique to criminal conspiracy reflect an increasingly draconian trend.

Campus protests and disciplinary action: As her posts gained traction, ABVP-led student protests erupted at Lucknow University, demanding her dismissal. Protesters raised slogans, submitted a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor, and insisted that her remarks were “anti-national.” Under pressure, the University issued Dr Kakoti a show-cause notice, as per the report of Moneycontrol.com, demanding an explanation within five days and threatening disciplinary action.

This targeting of a university professor, using student mobilisation and administrative pressure, is a playbook that has become disturbingly common. Whether in the case of Delhi University’s Dr GN Saibaba, JNU’s Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, or now Dr Kakoti, universities are being turned into battlegrounds for ideological policing.

As per Times of India, Dr Kakoti, originally from Assam and known for her pointed satire and critique of majoritarian politics, responded to the outrage by stating that “What I said is a fact and 100% correct. There is nothing wrong in this statement. It is a general one, listing crimes which fall within the definition of causing ‘terror’. I can’t really take any responsibility for someone thinking it is about them.”

Weaponising patriotism, silencing dissent: The FIR and the university’s swift disciplinary response are indicative of a deeper rot: the weaponisation of nationalism to criminalise critique, especially from voices seen as Left-leaning, secular, or resistant to the Sangh Parivar’s ideological worldview. ABVP leader Shukla told Newslaundry: “People from Leftist ideology are working to divide society and the students. They are making this issue political, when there is a situation of war between India and Pakistan and your ideology wants to create a civil war in the country itself.”

This framing—conflating dissent with disloyalty, criticism with conspiracy—is emblematic of an authoritarian approach to governance. By invoking an external enemy (Pakistan) and branding all domestic critics as internal threats, the state and its allied organisations seek to delegitimise political opposition altogether.

While the colonial-era sedition law under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code has been suspended pending Supreme Court review, its spirit has found a new home in Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—a catch-all provision criminalising any act seen as “endangering India’s sovereignty, unity or integrity.”

Both Dr Medusa and Neha Singh Rathore have been booked under this vague and sweeping section. That their posts were allegedly shared by a Pakistani social media handle has been used to bolster charges of sedition—a dubious logic that essentially gives foreign propaganda the power to criminalise Indian citizens.

Silencing dissent: Blocking 4PM news channel on YouTube over ‘national security’ concerns

In a fresh blow to press freedom and digital journalism in India, the YouTube news channel 4PM has been blocked in the country following a government order citing concerns related to “national security or public order.” The move, which lacks transparency and a clear public justification, marks yet another instance of the state using opaque mechanisms to silence critical voices in the media space—particularly those asking uncomfortable questions.

The ban, communicated to the channel’s editor-in-chief Sanjay Sharma via email from YouTube on Tuesday morning as per Newslaundry, comes shortly after 4PM published a series of videos critically analysing the government’s handling of the Pahalgam terror attack. Sharma, a veteran journalist, has stated that the channel’s intention was not to undermine national interest but to hold the government accountable in a democratic manner.

Coverage that asked tough questions: Although the exact video or post that led to the blocking remains unspecified, the report of Newslaundry provided that 4PM had recently uploaded content with headlines such as:

  • “Pahalgam hamle ka khul gaya raaz. Raaton raat kya hua ki hat gayi sena?”
  • “Laal kaaleen par Amit Shah ka swaagat. Mritakon ko shraddhanjali dene gaye the ya tamasha banaane?”

These pointed headlines reflect the channel’s critical editorial line: questioning the sudden security lapses in Pahalgam, the removal of troops before the attack, and the political spectacle surrounding Home Minister Amit Shah’s visit to pay tributes to the victims.

Rather than engage with these questions, the government has seemingly opted for the digital equivalent of a blackout. At the time of writing, visitors to 4PM’s YouTube page are met with a notice that reads:

“This content is currently unavailable in this country because of an order from the government related to national security or public order.”

Opaque process, no due process: The removal of 4PM comes under the ambit of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which allows the central government to issue blocking orders in “emergency” situations without providing the affected parties an opportunity to be heard beforehand. While the rules allow for post-facto hearings, critics argue this is largely a formality—especially when platforms comply without questioning or publicising the takedown.

No formal notice from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has been made public. The lack of transparency, both from the government and from YouTube, raises serious concerns about the misuse of national security as a blanket justification to suppress journalism that challenges the ruling dispensation.

A pattern of digital censorship: This is not an isolated incident. Over the past few years, India has seen a sharp rise in the blocking of YouTube channels, Twitter accounts, and news content critical of the central government, especially during sensitive moments such as the farmers’ protests, the Delhi riots, and the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir. Often, the reasoning given involves “public order” or “national interest”—but without explanation or recourse.

According to the Google Transparency Report of 2023, India has been among the top five countries in the world for government content takedown requests, with hundreds of URLs blocked citing national security. , these incidents signal a coordinated suppression of dissent in the digital sphere, particularly when it arises from independent or alternative media sources.

Democracy and the “Right to Know” at stake: 4PM is not a major corporate media house but a regional digital-first outlet with multiple sub-channels such as 4PM UP and 4PM Rajasthan. Its success lies in its direct communication with ordinary citizens, often bypassing mainstream narratives to highlight local grievances, administrative lapses, and political controversies. In doing so, it fulfils the media’s constitutional role of holding power to account.

By labelling such journalism as a threat to national security, the government not only criminalises scrutiny but also undermines the public’s right to information—a right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Conclusion: Policing speech, protecting power

The FIRs against Neha Singh Rathore and Dr Madri Kakoti, alongside the silencing of 4 PM, are not aberrations—they are part of a broader architecture of repression where dissent is equated with disloyalty, and grief is permitted only if it conforms to the state’s narrative. These actions came in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, a horrifying incident that claimed the lives of Indian soldiers and civilians. In moments like these, public mourning must be accompanied by public inquiry. People must be allowed to ask: How did such a breach happen in a heavily militarised zone? Were there lapses in intelligence? What accountability mechanisms are in place?

Instead of facilitating such democratic introspection, the state has chosen to clamp down on voices that seek it. Rathore’s Bhojpuri poem and Kakoti’s social media post did what responsible citizens should do in a constitutional democracy—they questioned state preparedness and response. Their criminalisation reveals a dangerous tendency: the shifting of focus from state failures to citizen ‘offences’.

Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with its vague and expansive clauses like Section 152, the state is increasingly equipped to prosecute dissent under the guise of protecting sovereignty. But as history shows, suppressing uncomfortable questions in the name of national security rarely leads to genuine safety—it leads to silence, impunity, and a brittle nationalism that cannot withstand scrutiny.

To defend freedom of expression today is to defend the right to grieve publicly, to question fearlessly, and to demand accountability relentlessly. The real threat to the republic is not a poem or a post—it is a government that treats questions as threats and critics as criminals. The price of dissent is rising—but so too is the cost of silence. And in the face of terror, it is not silence but scrutiny that keeps a democracy alive.

 

Related:

Echoes of Hate: Online anti-Muslim hate spreads against Muslim businesses and workers after Pahalgam attack

Complaint filed against VHP’s Chetan Jagdish Patel for inflammatory speech in Alibaug

Pahalgam attack sparks nationwide turmoil, Kashmiri students face a chilling wave of hate across India

SC leads the nation’s legal fraternity as it unites in grief & outrage over PahalgaSm terror attack

The post The Price of Dissent: In India, demanding accountability in times of grief must toe the line appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> ‘Prosecution Itself is Punishment for Them’ https://sabrangindia.in/prosecution-itself-is-punishment-for-them/ Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:14:58 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=28824 The Modi government has a poor record of jailing civil rights activists and political dissenters, amounting to silencing of dissent

The post ‘Prosecution Itself is Punishment for Them’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On the afternoon of Wednesday, July 19, the Press Club of India (PCI), adjacent to the newly-constructed Parliament, was jam-packed with activists, lawyers, scholars, students and civil society members. They all gathered at the national capital to speak against the state repression, violation of civil rights and misuse of the investigative agencies. Eminent lawyers Prashant Bhushan, Mihir Desai civil rights activists K. Ravi Chander, Prof. Laxman Gaddam, feminist activist Poonam Kaushik, Delhi University professors Nandita Narain and Saroj Giri were among the key speakers. The theme of the public meeting was ‘Indian democracy and the suppression of democratic voices.’

At the meeting, serious concerns were raised about the attacks on the civil liberty of people and the indiscriminate use of draconian laws by the state to silence its critics. The political misuse of the investigative agencies by the government was also condemned. But the main focus of the meeting was the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA). This law, with even more stringent provisions was brought in as a permanent counter-terror law in 2004 after the repeal of POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2003). Activists and other speakers demanded that the UAPA, amended in 2008 and 201 since, should be repealed without any delay.

One of the reasons for demanding its repeal is the way the police and investigative agencies have interpreted the act of terrorism. For example, the criticisms of the government and the top political executive have been seen as “disaffection against India” and the dissenters have been charged with cases under UAPA. Once a person gets arrested under the UAPA, the chances of getting bail become remote. This is because in the UAPA case, the responsibility to prove innocence is put on the accused. This goes against the liberal notion of jurisprudence, where granting bail is a rule and keeping one in jail is treated as an exception.

The spirit of the law, however, is reversed in the UAPA case. In the normal circumstance, an accused is presumed innocent, unless she/he is proven guilty. But in the UAPA case, the burden to prove one’s innocence is laid on the accused. As has been seen, the accused arrested under the UAPA cases have spent several years in jail without the filing of the chargesheet by the police and the beginning of the trial by the court.

During the Freedom Struggle, the issue of civil liberty figured prominently and the nationalist leaders spoke strongly against its violation by the colonial state. But the post-Independence democratic state has not only continued with the colonial sedition law but added a few extra-constitutional laws to its quiver. Several petitions challenging the constitutionality of the UAPA are pending in the Supreme Court, yet to be deliberated upon.

Bhushan is of the opinion that the investigative agencies have been widely misused by the ruling establishment. For example, an overwhelming number of cases slapped by the ED are against the opposition leaders. In the meeting, he, therefore, reiterated the need for an independent functioning of the investigative agencies and employing a fair selection process for choosing their top officers.

At the time when the meeting was being held at the Press Club in New Delhi, another campaign, for the release of the Adivasi Rights journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh was going on. He has completed a year in jail. Last year on July 17, 2022, Rupesh was arrested by Jharkhand police. He was charged with different sections of IPC as well as UAPA. At present, he is in Patna’s Beur Jail.

Human rights activists argue that Rupesh’s only “crime” is that he, as a journalist, wrote stories against the ongoing plunder by the corporate houses. He highlighted the violation of the special provisions enshrined in the Constitution for the protection of the Adivasi lands. After he was jailed, the family suffered hardship.

Her 38-year-old wife Ipsa Shatakshi was fired from her teaching job at a private school, a few months after his arrest. Facing a financial crisis, she has to offer private tuition to feed his family and pay for the education of her six-year-old son, Agrim. Besides, she needs resources to fight the legal battle for justice for her husband.

While we are aware of the case of Rupesh, there are other prisoners arrested under draconian laws about whom the mainstream press hardly writes a few words.

The violation of the civil rights of the political prisoners of the Bhima Koregaon cases is yet to become an issue in the mainstream media. The accused have spent almost five years without any substantive investigation by the police. It seems that the main motive of the police in the UAPA cases is not to investigate the allegation but to delay the process so that the prisoners keep languishing in jail year after year.

Such a negative trend has also been seen in the 2020 Delhi-riots cases. Umar Khalid has been denied bail even after he has spent one thousand days in jail. Sharjeel Imam and Meeran Haider, other anti-CAA activists who were arrested much before Umar, are yet to get out of jail on bail.

According to one estimate, over one thousand people are put in jail under different cases related to the Delhi riots and about whom the media hardly report anything. Thus prosecution itself has become punishment for most of these detainees who may be set free by the courts finding them innocent.

While there are enough provisions in the IPC to punish criminals and maintain law and order, the state has enacted several extra-constitutional laws to punish dissenters. The draconian laws are often justified in the name of national security, but it is largely misused against the most vulnerable sections and the political opponents of the government. Such a policy does not work for national integration but gives birth to discontent in society.

The figures from the National Crime Records Bureau for 2019 show that the people arrested under the UAPA have seen an increase of over 72% from 2015 when the Modi Government came to power. A democratic polity is different from an authoritarian regime in the sense that the former ensures the protection of civil rights.

(First published in News Trail, Bengaluru)

(The author is a Delhi-based journalist)

Related:

Pasmanda Muslims need justice, not merely lip service

Adivasis wants protection of identity & rights, not uniform laws: Prof Virginius Xaxa

The post ‘Prosecution Itself is Punishment for Them’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Bihar circular on action against critics: Vague and disregards right to dissent https://sabrangindia.in/bihar-circular-action-against-critics-vague-and-disregards-right-dissent/ Wed, 27 Jan 2021 04:08:15 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2021/01/27/bihar-circular-action-against-critics-vague-and-disregards-right-dissent/ The circular issued by Bihar government asking police to take action against persons making objectionable or offensive comments aimed towards the government, goes against not just fundamental rights but also views held by the Supreme Court and its judges

The post Bihar circular on action against critics: Vague and disregards right to dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Right to dissent

The latest circular/letter issued by the Economic Offences Wing of Bihar has sparked debates over how the JDU-BJP coalition heading the state is moving towards curbing freedom of speech on the internet. The letter is a reminder, and seemingly an action call to Bihar Police, to start acting on complaints against comments made on social media criticising the government and report them to the EOW, Bihar.

“The true test of democracy is its ability to ensure creation and protection of spaces where every individual can voice their opinion without the fear of retribution,” Justice DY Chandrachud had said in one of his lectures delivered at Gujarat High Court. Clearly, what the Bihar government seeks to do is in complete contrast to this view held by a Supreme Court judge.

The circular by Bihar Police’s Economic Offences Unit (EOU) states, “It has regularly been coming to light that certain persons and organisations have been making offensive comments through social media and Internet against government, honourable ministers, MPs, MLAs and government officials as well, which is against prescribed law and comes under cybercrime laws. For this act, it seems appropriate to take action against such organisations and individuals”.

There exist reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under the Indian Constitution that one needs to be mindful of and what the police should also look out for when booking persons basis complaints received by them to see whether the comment has any substance that it warrants action or will the action thwart one freedom of speech considering it does not violate the reasonable restrictions enshrined under Article 19(2). The police are however guided by the penal code and criminal procedures but often forget to look at constitutional and fundamental rights of persons they are acting against.

A recent example of police acting on a complaint without substance was in Madhya Pradesh where a comedian, Faruqui Munawar, and his team were put behind bars for a joke he never uttered but the complainant allegedly heard him practice before the show; one that insulted Hindu deities. Acting on this verbal complaint, the police arrested Munawar and his team and they still remain behind bars.

The circular seems like an attempt to replicate a similar model, of taking action against any person whose speech offends another, in Bihar’s case, the government. Be that as it may, what is important is whether it stands the test of constitutionality, whether it will tend to violate fundamental rights of people. The letter is an administrative diktat at best asking the Police to be more attentive and alert of complaints against comments made in criticism of the government. What triggered this action has been explained by The Wire in one of its articles where it is said that there are a number of YouTubers, social media influencers and local media platforms in Bihar who often criticise the government, and whose videos and posts go viral.

Freedom of speech

The foremost has to be the Constitution itself and while Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression clause 2 of the Article imposes restrictions in terms of the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.

It is also important to bring in the debate against the offence of Sedition that still finds its place in the Indian Penal Code. But when the Constitution was being drafted, there was opposition in including the word sedition therein. K.M. Munshi, Member of the Drafting Committee had opined

“…a line must be drawn between criticism of Government which should be welcome and incitement which would undermine the security or order on which civilized life is based, or which is calculated to overthrow the State… As a matter of fact, the essence of Democracy is criticism of Government. The party system which necessarily involves an advocacy of replacement of one Government by another is its only bulwark; the advocacy of different system of government should be welcome because that gives vitality to a democracy”

While several Supreme Court judgements may be cited that have upheld freedom of speech and expression in its myriad manifestations including, freedom of press, expression through literature, art, cinema and so on, the most relevant one is the judgment in Shreya Singhal vs. UOI (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73, whereby the apex court struck down two provisions namely section 66A (Punishment for sending offensive messages) of the IT Act and section 118(d) [causing annoyance in an indecent manner] of the Kerala Police Act as both suffered from vagueness and overbreadth.

The judgment delivered by Justice RF Nariman and Justice J Chelameswar had rightly pointed out, “What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.” One of the many points considered by the court before striking down section 66A of IT Act was that it purports to authorise the imposition of restrictions on the fundamental right contained in Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] in language wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action, thus opening up the possibility of it being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution.

The Bihar circular calls for action against persons making offensive comments against legislators and government officials. Police personnel could interpret this in multiple ways and find offences under the IPC to book anyone that simply criticises the government. The letter also suffers the same defect as did section 66A of IT Act struck down by the apex court, that is of overbreadth and vagueness.

Right to dissent

There is a lot of material that can be cited in support of the argument of freedom of speech and since we are dealing with criticism against the government, right to dissent is germane to the discussion.

A lecture was delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, former Supreme Court judge, at the Supreme Court Bar Association in February 2020 speaking about the right to dissent where he said, “The right of freedom of opinion and the right of freedom of conscience by themselves include the extremely important right to disagree. The right to disagree, the right to dissent and the right to take another point of view, would inherently in each and every citizen of the country.”

The right to dissent is the biggest right he had said and the most important one granted by the Constitution.

Even Justice DY Chandrachud, a judge at the Supreme Court had spoken about the right to dissent at the 15th PD Desai Memorial Lecture at the Gujarat high court. He called dissent a “safety valve” of democracy and that “blanket labelling” of dissent as anti-national or anti-democratic strikes at the “heart” of the country’s commitment to protect Constitutional values and promote deliberative democracy.

“Protecting dissent is but a reminder that while a democratically elected government offers us a legitimate tool for development and social coordination, they can never claim a monopoly over the values and identities that define our plural society,” he said. He deemed suppression of differences and silencing of popular and unpopular voices offering alternative or opposing views as a great threat to pluralism.

Evidently so, the Bihar circular on account of it being vague and overbroad severely threatens fundamental rights of speech and right to dissent. The circular in stating that action be taken against offensive posts aimed towards the government and not mentioning what kind of comments lie within the boundaries of freedom of speech, makes it an inadequate direction. It also makes the circular an unwarranted direction as it does not introduce any new procedure but merely calls for execution upon those provisions in penal law that have been in existence for a long time now, thus making it absolutely uncalled for. When there are more serious crimes to be dealt with, deserving the attention of the police, criticism faced by a state government may be the least of the concerns for law and order.

Related:

Objectionable comments against government, Bihar demands action

Kerala govt to withdraw controversial Sec 118A from Kerala Police Act

Will the new amendment to Kerala Police Act curb free speech?

The post Bihar circular on action against critics: Vague and disregards right to dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Illustrator Ashish Bagchi and his “Instagrammy” dissent https://sabrangindia.in/illustrator-ashish-bagchi-and-his-instagrammy-dissent/ Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:32:11 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2020/10/30/illustrator-ashish-bagchi-and-his-instagrammy-dissent/ Digital artist Ashish Bagchi shares his views on the current regime – the source of inspiration for his dissenting artworks.

The post Illustrator Ashish Bagchi and his “Instagrammy” dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Instagram
Image: instagram.com/ash.bagchi/

 

“I hope to diminish the fear people have of speaking up,” says illustrator and UNICEF – Ezra Jack Keats recipient Ashish Bagchi.

The digital artist is well-known as @ash.bagchi on social media platform Instagram for creating many satirical artworks based on statements of authority figures.

“I’m not good at weaving stories, my images are my words; a way to chronicle events that unfortunately are not very pleasant since past few years. Images don’t easily fall into cracks of oblivion, they last longer and revisit us as reminders,” he said.

 

Originally, Bagchi used to share his artwork only on Twitter. However, as his peers encouraged him to switch to the other virtual platform for his “Instagrammy” artwork, Bagchi created a new account. He realised that Instagram gave him the same level of fame with fewer trolls. So, he decided to make a permanent switch although some of his artworks can still be viewed on Twitter.

His posts approach important social events – good or otherwise – with a humorous perspective. Most of the time, Bagchi seems to be critical of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-government but, as he is quick to point out, there are a few apolitical posts peppered in between socio-political works. Even so, it is undeniable how many of Bagchi’s works create a caricature of Modi or some other BJP leader.

 

 

“The criticism is not aimed at any individual but at the overall regime, their policies and commentary. I have never seen such lies, divisive propaganda in the name of religion and a brazen misuse of power in all my years of political awareness. If you have a thinking mind, it’s difficult not to be political,” says Bagchi.

He certainly proved this point in his artworks that discussed Indian economy, coronavirus pandemic, unemployment, caste-related crimes, crony-capitalism and communalism in no particular order. In one artwork, Bagchi also conveyed his opinion on the judiciary.

 

 

“It was respected as a saviour against corruption not long ago. But now we have Supreme Court verdicts that reject pleas seeking relief for migrants. Similar decisions on cases like Loya, Bhima-Koregaon, Rafale, Babri Masjid further established its place as a new ‘main bhi chowkidar’ on the block,” said Bagchi.

Another artwork titled ‘To the man with genuine degrees,’ shows Modi standing in the shadow of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Although not a man of many words, the artist said that anyone could write a tome, when comparing these two personalities not only as Prime Ministers but also as human beings.

“Not many know that Dr Manmohan Singh belonged to a poor family but he never tom-tommed about it. You’ll never see a comic book called Bal Manmohan. You will never come across anyone doubting his Doctorate degree from Oxford. The dignity of silence will always tower over the cacophony of narcissism,” he said.

 

 

When asked to elaborate on his scepticism towards the ruling BJP, he talked about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC.) Bagchi called it a direct attack on the Constitutional principle of secularism. Further, he recalled the abrogation of Article 370 that gave special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir and reminded that residents – “the so-called beneficiaries” – of the now Union territories are still denied decent internet speed.

Moreover, he criticised the government for its handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the “ill-planned lockdown.”

“They are building a temple when we are staring at a pandemic. Right now, there is a compelling need to build better healthcare facilities more than ever. Instead, we have a Central Vista Project costing Rs 20,000-crore amidst total collapse of the economy,” he says.

The current plight of Indian farmers who were agitating against the three anti-farmer Bills also worried Bagchi because he feared the laws would turn the proud Annadatas into bonded labourers of AA companies. However, what the artist feared most was total anarchy in the current political scenario – a possibility that seemed likely considering the behaviour of the media.

Prime-time anchors like Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami have many times been the butt of Bagchi’s pictorial jokes. Speaking about the fourth estate, Bagchi says, “Some journalists are paid to spew venom. I have hope for journalists who’ve started their independent channels on YouTube.”

However, he said that mainstream media could have no redemption in the current regime that seemed to consider “arm-twisting the press” its agenda. Similarly, when asked about his opinion on freedom of speech in India, he recounted the recent arrests of human rights activists like Umar Khalid.

“Goli maaro s****n ko ones roam free and stand beside a cabinet minister. Umar Khalid and many including an 83-year-old are behind bars for speaking in favour of secularism and non-violence…”, he said.

Related:

100 years later, country still makes the same old demands: Madpaule

Apolitical is a luxury few can afford: Rahee and Sarah

I dissent! Digital Artist Bhawana takes on bigotry

The Making of a Vishwa Guru

The post Illustrator Ashish Bagchi and his “Instagrammy” dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Unite in defence of the Rule of Law & Article 19, senior bureaucrats tell Indians https://sabrangindia.in/unite-defence-rule-law-article-19-senior-bureaucrats-tell-indians/ Sat, 04 Jul 2020 10:58:34 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2020/07/04/unite-defence-rule-law-article-19-senior-bureaucrats-tell-indians/ A statement issued by 99 former bureaucrats and policemen, the Constitutional Conduct Group, decries the assault on the freedom of expression and the right to dissent and calls on Indians to unite in protest

The post Unite in defence of the Rule of Law & Article 19, senior bureaucrats tell Indians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> freedom of speech

In a statement issued today, 99 former senior bureaucrats with the government of India have bemoaned the consistent attack on the freedom of expression and the right to dissent by the Modi 2.0 regime

The signatories include Ravi Vira Gupta, Former Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Wajahat Habibubullah, former Chief Information Commissioner & Secretary, GOI, Sundar Burra, former Secretary. Government of Maharashtra, MG Devasahayam, former Secretary, government of Haryana, Sushil Dubey, IFS, former Ambassador to Sweden and Julio Ribeiro, former Ambassador to Romania and former DGP, Punjab.
 

The entire statement may be read here:

“This statement by our group of former civil servants arises from our deep concern at the assault on the Rule of Law in India and on its citizens’ rights to free speech and dissent, basic elements of any democracy. The whole constitutional edifice is dependent on the Rule of Law, which implies the subjection of all the organs and instrumentalities of the state to the law and the absence of arbitrary power. The rights to Freedom of Speech & Expression, Freedom of Assembly and the like, guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, are a corrective to the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged across the axes of income, gender, religion, caste and community. To uphold the rule of law and enforce the rights to freedoms, the judiciary must be the vigilant sentinel guarding the values of constitutional propriety.

“Scholars like Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen have established that the elimination of famine, a colonial legacy in India, came from the clamour of the media, the legislatures and the courts as also concerns of political parties seeking re-election. Public Interest Litigation has given voice to the suppressed on issues like bonded labour, child labour and the illiterate without work or food finding resonance in the corridors of power. Article 19 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing freedom of speech is the key in this struggle.

“The rampant erosion of the rule of law in evidence today militates against the actualization of the freedom of speech which is the cornerstone of democratic functioning. The gulf between the Rule of Law rhetoric and reality is getting wider and wider. The police establishments across the country appear to have become proxies for the respective ruling parties. Independent experts like Special Rapporteurs and members of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions associated with the United Nations, in referring to the arrest of eleven activists, including Kafeel Khan, Safoora Zargar, Akhil Gogoi and Sharjeel Imam, say succinctly: “These defenders, many of them students, appear to have been arrested simply because they exercised their right to denounce and protest against the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act), and their arrest seems clearly designed to send a chilling message to India’s vibrant civil society that criticism of government policies will not be tolerated.” Journalists like Gauri Lankesh, a free-spirited journalist writing in Kannada,  have been murdered, shot in cold blood allegedly by right-wing groups.

“According to the Press Freedom Index of Reporters without Borders, India stands at 142 out of 180 countries in 2020, falling 6 places since 2015. Flagrant misuse of draconian laws of sedition and the Unauthorized Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has led to the arrest of journalists, intellectuals, university students, film-makers, human rights activists and popular figures who dared criticise the present regime. When, as happened in Karnataka, in consequence of a school play critical of the CAA  a primary school teacher and the mother of a student  are charged with sedition and two young children aged 9 and 10 are questioned by police over many days, this becomes a theatre of the absurd.  

“Any criticism of government is considered “anti-national” and invites punitive wrath. The law of sedition, itself a colonial relic, is resorted to by a succession of governments, but its application has sharply increased. From 2016 to 2018, 332 persons were arrested under this law but only 7 convicted, exposing the absence of evidence and exercise of vendetta. The online portal Scroll.in reported that more than “10,000 Adivasis in Jharkhand have been accused of sedition and disturbing public order” in connection with the Pathalgadi movement.

“In the case of UAPA, court proceedings drag on while detention continues. In the celebrated Bhima-Koregaon case several of India’s finest social and human rights activists like Sudha Bharadwaj, Shoma Sen and Gautam Navlakha and public intellectuals like Anand Teltumbde languish in prison under the malevolent label of “urban Maoists”, which consigns such exemplars of civic life to the reviled category of “anti-national”. Attacks on students of Jawaharlal Nehru University  and Jamia Milia Islamia  recently choked the rights of students and faculty to voice their criticism of the existing state of affairs, including the CAA.

“The corona pandemic has been an excuse for curbing freedom of speech across States. A report of the Rights and Risks Analysis Group has it that 55 journalists were singled out for writing on the mishandling of the Covid situation: threats, FIRs, assaults and arrests were amongst the intimidatory tactics used. Though the largest number was in UP, such cases also took place in States with governments of different political parties. Dhaval Patel in Gujarat and Rahul Zori in Maharashtra, with FIRs filed against them, and Major Singh Panjabi being beaten up in Punjab by the police are examples. Earlier in the year, one Dr Indranil Khan in Kolkata was interrogated, threatened with arrest and had his phone and SIM card confiscated for commenting online of deficiencies in the supply of PPE to doctors and nurses working with corona patients. In a rare defence of the freedom of speech, the Kolkata High Court in his case said: “Freedom of speech and expression which is granted under Article 19 of the Constitution of India has to be scrupulously upheld by the State. If an expression of opinion brings the government into disrepute, it cannot defend this allegation by intimidation of the person expressing the opinion by subjecting him to prolonged interrogation, threatening arrest, seizing his mobile phone and SIM card and so on.”

“When Siddharth Varadarajan, founding Editor of The Wire, faced criminal charges for reporting that the UP Chief Minister attended a religious event after the lockdown was announced, more than 4600 signatories protested, amongst them eminent academics, a retired Supreme Court Judge, a former National Security Adviser, a former Chief of Naval Staff and well-known persons connected with the arts. “A medical emergency should not serve as the pretext for the imposition of a de facto political emergency” they wrote.

“The detentions in Kashmir of hundreds of political activists and the suspension of communications for several months after the revocation of its special status is a blot on India’s democracy, with Kashmir described by the International Press Institute as amongst the “world’s most repressive spots for the press.” In many parts of India, Section 144 is imposed for extended periods of time to prohibit the assembly of people despite the Supreme Court ruling that such curbs be restricted to emergencies.

“Finally, the investigations into the riots in north-east Delhi have betrayed an institutional bias against the minority community.  Dr M.A. Anwar, the proprietor of Hind Hospital in New Mustafabad, whose prompt action in providing help to injured people during the targeted violence in North East Delhi in late February 2020 was praised by many, including the Delhi High Court, is now named in a charge-sheet filed in a murder case and for instigating local people against the government on the issue of CAA-NRC. The UAPA has been used against activists who opposed the CAA through peaceful protest. People like Harsh Mander and Yogendra Yadav have been named in charge sheets even though they are not amongst the accused. Harsh Mander’s speech, which called for peace, was made in December, 2019,  weeks before the outbreak of any violence. Yet there are rumours of his intended arrest which, were it to occur now, would make a travesty of the law. Meanwhile, Kapil Mishra and Anurag Thakur, BJP leader and Minister respectively, who had openly called for violence, widely projected in the media, which followed almost immediately thereafter, face no action.

“All Indians must unite in defence of the Rule of Law and Article 19, the repository of the democratic right to freedom of speech and to dissent.

SATYAMEVA JAYATE”

Constitutional Conduct Group (99 signatories as below)

  1.  

Anita Agnihotri

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Department of Social Justice Empowerment, GoI
  1.  

Salahuddin Ahmad

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan
  1.  

S.P. Ambrose

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Secretary, Ministry of Shipping & Transport, GoI
  1.  

Anand Arni

R&AW (Retd.)

Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GoI
  1.  

G. Balachandhran

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
  1.  

Vappala Balachandran

IPS (Retd.)

Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GoI
  1.  

Gopalan Balagopal

IAS (Retd.)

Former Special Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
  1.  

Chandrashekhar Balakrishnan

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Coal, GoI
  1.  

Sharad Behar

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh
  1.  

Aurobindo Behera

IAS (Retd.)

Former Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Odisha
  1.  

Madhu Bhaduri

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Portugal
  1.  

Ravi Budhiraja

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chairman, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, GoI
  1.  

Sundar Burra

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
  1.  

Rachel Chatterjee

IAS (Retd.)

Former Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
  1.  

Kalyani Chaudhuri

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
  1.  

Anna Dani

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
  1.  

Surjit K. Das

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttarakhand
  1.  

Vibha Puri Das

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, GoI
  1.  

P.R. Dasgupta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chairman, Food Corporation of India, GoI
  1.  

Pradeep K. Deb

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Deptt. Of Sports, GoI
  1.  

Nitin Desai

IES (Retd.)

Former Secretary and Chief Economic Adviser, Ministry of Finance, GoI
  1.  

Keshav Desiraju

IAS (Retd.)

Former Health Secretary, GoI
  1.  

M.G. Devasahayam

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Govt. of Haryana
  1.  

Sushil Dubey

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Sweden
  1.  

A.S. Dulat

IPS (Retd.)

Former OSD on Kashmir, Prime Minister’s Office, GoI
  1.  

K.P. Fabian

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Italy
  1.  

Prabhu Ghate

IAS (Retd.)

Former Addl. Director General, Department of Tourism, GoI
  1.  

Gourisankar Ghosh

IAS (Retd.)

Former Mission Director, National Drinking Water Mission, GoI
  1.  

Suresh K. Goel

IFS (Retd.)

Former Director General, Indian Council of Cultural Relations, GoI
  1.  

S.K. Guha

IAS (Retd.)

Former Joint Secretary, Department of Women & Child Development, GoI
  1.  

Meena Gupta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, GoI
  1.  

Ravi Vira Gupta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India
  1.  

Wajahat Habibullah

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, GoI and Chief Information Commissioner
  1.  

Deepa Hari

IRS (Resigned)

 
  1.  

Sajjad Hassan

IAS (Retd.)

Former Commissioner (Planning), Govt. of Manipur
  1.  

Siraj Hussain

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Department of Agriculture, GoI
  1.  

Kamal Jaswal

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Department of Information Technology, GoI
  1.  

Najeeb Jung

IAS (Retd.)

Former Lieutenant Governor, Delhi
  1.  

Vinod C. Khanna

IFS (Retd.)

Former Additional Secretary, MEA, GoI
  1.  

Rahul Khullar

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
  1.  

K. John Koshy

IAS (Retd.)

Former State Chief Information Commissioner, West Bengal
  1.  

Ajai Kumar

Indian Forest Service (Retd.)

Former Director, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI
  1.  

Brijesh Kumar

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Department of Information Technology, GoI
  1.  

Sudhir Kumar

IAS (Retd.)

Former Member, Central Administrative Tribunal
  1.  

P.K. Lahiri

IAS (Retd.)

Former Executive Director, Asian Development Bank
  1.  

Aloke B. Lal

IPS (Retd.)

Former Director General (Prosecution), Govt. of Uttarakhand
  1.  

Subodh Lal

IPoS (Resigned)

Former Deputy Director General, Ministry of Communications, GoI
  1.  

Amitabh Mathur

IPS (Retd.)

Former Director, Aviation Research Centre and Former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, GoI
  1.  

Lalit Mathur

IAS (Retd.)

Former Director General, National Institute of Rural Development, GoI
  1.  

Aditi Mehta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan
  1.  

Dalip Mehta

IFS (Retd.)

Former Secretary to GoI & Dean, Foreign Service Institute
  1.  

Shivshankar Menon

IFS (Retd.)

Former Foreign Secretary and Former National Security Adviser
  1.  

Sonalini Mirchandani

IFS (Resigned)

GoI
  1.  

Sunil Mitra

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Finance, GoI
  1.  

Avinash Mohananey

IPS (Retd.)

Former Director General of Police, Govt. of Sikkim
  1.  

Deb Mukharji

IFS (Retd.)

Former High Commissioner to Bangladesh and former Ambassador to Nepal
  1.  

Shiv Shankar Mukherjee

IFS (Retd.)

Former High Commissioner to the United Kingdom
  1.  

Pranab S. Mukhopadhyay

IAS (Retd.)

Former Director, Institute of Port Management, GoI
  1.  

Nagalsamy

IA&AS (Retd.)

Former Principal Accountant General, Tamil Nadu & Kerala
  1.  

Sobha Nambisan

IAS (Retd.)

Former Principal Secretary (Planning), Govt. of Karnataka
  1.  

P.G.J. Nampoothiri

IPS (Retd.)

Former Director General of Police, Govt. of Gujarat
  1.  

Amitabha Pande

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Inter-State Council, GoI
  1.  

Mira Pande

IAS (Retd.)

Former State Election Commissioner, West Bengal
  1.  

Niranjan Pant

IA&AS (Retd.)

Former Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General, GoI
  1.  

Alok Perti

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Coal, GoI
  1.  

R. Poornalingam

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, GoI
  1.  

R.M. Premkumar

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
  1.  

T.R. Raghunandan

IAS (Retd.)

Former Joint Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, GoI
  1.  

N.K. Raghupathy

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, GoI
  1.  

V.P. Raja

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chairman, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission
  1.  

C. Babu Rajeev

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, GoI
  1.  

K. Sujatha Rao

IAS (Retd.)

Former Health Secretary, GoI
  1.  

Vijaya Latha Reddy

IFS (Retd.)

Former Deputy National Security Adviser, GoI
  1.  

Julio Ribeiro

IPS (Retd.)

Former Adviser to Governor of Punjab & former Ambassador to Romania
  1.  

Aruna Roy

IAS (Resigned)

 
  1.  

Manabendra N. Roy

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
  1.  

Deepak Sanan

IAS (Retd.)

Former Principal Adviser (AR) to Chief Minister, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh
  1.  

G. Sankaran

IC&CES (Retd.)

Former President, Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal 
  1.  

Shyam Saran

IFS (Retd.)

Former Foreign Secretary and Former Chairman, National Security Advisory Board
  1.  

S. Satyabhama

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chairperson, National Seeds Corporation, GoI
  1.  

N.C. Saxena

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Planning Commission, GoI
  1.  

Ardhendu Sen

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal
  1.  

Abhijit Sengupta

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Culture, GoI
  1.  

Aftab Seth

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Japan
  1.  

Ashok Kumar Sharma

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Finland and Estonia
  1.  

Navrekha Sharma

IFS (Retd.)

Former Ambassador to Indonesia
  1.  

Raju Sharma

IAS (Retd.)

Former Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh
  1.  

K.S. Sidhu

IAS (Retd.)

Former Principal Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra
  1.  

Padamvir Singh

IAS (Retd.)

Former Director, LBSNAA, Mussoorie, GoI
  1.  

Sujatha Singh

IFS (Retd.)

Former Foreign Secretary, GoI
  1.  

Tirlochan Singh

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, National Commission for Minorities, GoI
  1.  

Jawhar Sircar

 

IAS (Retd.)

 

Former Secretary, Ministry of Culture, GoI, & former CEO, Prasar Bharati
  1.  

Narendra Sisodia

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary, Ministry of Finance, GoI
  1.  

Thanksy Thekkekera

IAS (Retd.)

Former Additional Chief Secretary, Minorities Development, Govt. of Maharashtra
  1.  

P.S.S. Thomas

IAS (Retd.)

Former Secretary General, National Human Rights Commission
  1.  

Geetha Thoopal

IRAS (Retd.)

Former General Manager, Metro Railway, Kolkata
  1.  

Hindal Tyabji

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chief Secretary rank, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir
  1.  

Ashok Vajpeyi

IAS (Retd.)

Former Chairman, Lalit Kala Akademi
  1.  

Ramani Venkatesan

 

IAS (Retd.)

Former Director General, YASHADA, Govt. of Maharashtra

 

 

The post Unite in defence of the Rule of Law & Article 19, senior bureaucrats tell Indians appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> No holy cow when it comes to dissent, SC judge Deepak Gupta speaks out again https://sabrangindia.in/no-holy-cow-when-it-comes-dissent-sc-judge-deepak-gupta-speaks-out-again/ Tue, 25 Feb 2020 06:15:44 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2020/02/25/no-holy-cow-when-it-comes-dissent-sc-judge-deepak-gupta-speaks-out-again/ “Criticism of any institution is to be protected — the executive, legislature, judiciary, and even the armed forces. There is no holy cow when it comes to dissent” Justice Gupta said adding that majoritarianism can also not be accepted

The post No holy cow when it comes to dissent, SC judge Deepak Gupta speaks out again appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> SC judge Deepak Gupta

The government has no right to stifle or quell protest as long as the protests are peaceful, Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta said on Monday (February 24).Delivering a lecture on “Democracy and Dissent” organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Gupta said, “Criticism of any institution is to be protected — the executive, legislature, judiciary, and even the armed forces. There is no holy cow when it comes to dissent.”

“No doubt, these views must be expressed in a peaceful manner, but citizens have a right to get together and protest when they feel that actions taken by the government are not proper. Their cause may not always be right, but at the same time the government may also not be right,” Justice Gupta said.

“Societies will remain stagnant if there is no challenge to accepted norms,” the judge added.

After becoming a judge of the top court in February 2017, Justice Gupta has presided over many important environment cases, including the case seeking to curb air pollution in the national capital. He is also part of the bench hearing the case seeking proper implementation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He is due to retire on May 6 this year.

“I was given a number of topics, but I chose to speak on this topic ‘democracy and dissent’ because of what is happening in the country. Dissent must not only be tolerated but also encouraged,” the judge said.

“Disagreement, dissent and dialogue alone can run a democracy. The government and country are two different things. You can be critical of the government without being being critical of the country,” he added.

The judge also said that while the rule of the majority is inherent to a democracy, majoritarian rule cannot be accepted.

“Especially in a first past the post system, those in power do not represent the majority of the voting electorate, let alone majority of the citizens. The government is not only for whatever percentage of population that voted for them, but a government of all citizens,” Justice Gupta said.

Speaking on the significance of dissent in the judicial system, the judge said that there can be no democracy without a fearless and independent judiciary.

“The judges must be independent of political power and media influence, and must not fear to pen a dissent,” Justice Gupta said.

However, he was quick to point out that personal opinions of judges must not be taken for dissenting with the law laid down by the court. “Not every case should be referred to larger bench at the drop of a hat,” he said.

“Even if I feel that a five-judge bench ruling has not laid down the law correctly, I am bound to follow it when I sit in a two or three-judge bench. My disagreement is personal and we should uphold the precedent for certainty of law,” the judge said.

Justice Gupta also called out resolutions passed by certain Bar Associations, refusing to represent individuals deemed to have committed “anti-national activities”. A lawyer’s refusal to represent an individual is “totally unacceptable” and “obstruction of the judicial process”, he added.

The post No holy cow when it comes to dissent, SC judge Deepak Gupta speaks out again appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Controlling Dissent: Ramchandra Guha, left leaders detained for anti-CAA protests https://sabrangindia.in/controlling-dissent-ramchandra-guha-left-leaders-detained-anti-caa-protests/ Fri, 20 Dec 2019 03:57:07 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2019/12/20/controlling-dissent-ramchandra-guha-left-leaders-detained-anti-caa-protests/ Yogendra Yadav and Left leaders like Sitaram Yechury, Nilotpal Basus and Brinda Karat detained in nation-wide protests against CAA.

The post Controlling Dissent: Ramchandra Guha, left leaders detained for anti-CAA protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> guha

From the North to the South, there is no state in the country that has not erupted in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Historian Ramachandra Guha, Swaraj India leader Yogendra Yadav and Left leaders D Raja, Sitaram Yechury, Brinda Karat and Prakash Karat are some of the prominent public figures who have been detained by the police on December 19, in various states, for protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the country.

Ramachandra Guha was dragged by the police mid-interview as he was detained along with dozens of other protestors in Bengaluru at the Town Hall during a protest against the CAA. Section 144 of CrPC which does not allow an assembly of 5 or more persons in public, was imposed in Karnataka last evening ahead of the protests to take place today.

Ramachandra Guha told NDTV, “I have been detained by police for holding a poster of Gandhi and speaking about the constitution to the press. The police are working under directions from central government. We are protesting non-violently against a discriminatory act, in a disciplined way. Look here, everyone is protesting peacefully. Have you seen any violence?”.
 

Swaraj India leader, Yogendra Yadav confirmed his detention through Twitter. 
 

For fear of detention, many people had left the protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. Yogendra Yadav tweeted asking them to return to the venue and continue with the protest and that he would join them once he was freed from detention.

 

 

The Left leaders including D Raja, Sitaram Yechury, Nilotpal Basu, Brinda Karat who were detained at Mandi House, Delhi during the anti-CAA protest defying prohibitory orders, were later released. “We were detained and then taken in buses and dropped at different areas. I was dropped off near Karol Bagh while some others have been taken to Bawana,” CPI General Secretary D Raja told PTI just after he was let off.

A number of student protestors were also detained at Bhagwan Dass Road, the Deccan Herald reported the police as saying. Many student protestors were detained in the area around the Red Fort where section 144 has been imposed.

In some parts of Delhi, earlier today internet services were shut and there are reports that they are being restored gradually. In all this, protestors are quite evidently undeterred and unfazed by the political might and the brute police force and they are braving all of this to save the one holy book of the country, the Constitution.

 

Related:
Julio Ribeiro condemns “atmosphere of fear”
Celebs join anti-CAA chorus, condemn police brutality against students
In times of CAA & NRC remember the words of Kakori martyrs
SC: No stay on CAA, issues notices to Centre to respond by mid-January
Gov’t strategically shutting down Delhi metro stations to control anti-CAA protesters?
Anti-CAA protests intensify across India, security tightened
Bollywood’s clarion call against the CAA and police brutality on students

The post Controlling Dissent: Ramchandra Guha, left leaders detained for anti-CAA protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> When Majrooh Sultanpuri went to jail for writing poetry against Nehru https://sabrangindia.in/when-majrooh-sultanpuri-went-jail-writing-poetry-against-nehru/ Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:57:43 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2018/09/29/when-majrooh-sultanpuri-went-jail-writing-poetry-against-nehru/ On his 99th birth anniversary, read how noted Hindi film lyricist and poet Majrooh Sultanpuri got arrested for reciting poetry against Jawaharlal Nehru at a meeting organised for mill workers in Mumbai and how his left leanings often got him in trouble.   October 1 is the birth anniversary of famed poet and lyricist Majrooh […]

The post When Majrooh Sultanpuri went to jail for writing poetry against Nehru appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> On his 99th birth anniversary, read how noted Hindi film lyricist and poet Majrooh Sultanpuri got arrested for reciting poetry against Jawaharlal Nehru at a meeting organised for mill workers in Mumbai and how his left leanings often got him in trouble.

Majrooh Sultanpuri
 
October 1 is the birth anniversary of famed poet and lyricist Majrooh Sultanpuri. “Majrooh” is an Urdu word which means wounded or injured. Besides writing many popular songs for Bollywood in a career spanning half a century, Sultanpuri was a Leftist communist who read Marx and Lenin and was also jailed for two years in Mumbai for reciting poetry against Jawaharlal Nehru.
 
Just a year before his 100th birth anniversary, a national seminar on Majrooh Sultanpuri’s life and achievements has been organised in the Kalina Campus of Mumbai University on September 30 followed by a music show celebrating his greatest hits.
 
Sultanpuri was born in 1919 as Asrar ul Hasan Khan to a police officer who did not want English education for him. He was sent to a madrasa where he completed a seven-year course of Dars-e-Nizami (religious affairs) along with Arabic and Persian. He studied Unani medicine (Greek school of medicine and was a struggling hakim (physician.) As luck would have it, his poetry recitation was much appreciated at a Mushaira in his hometown. He became famous Urdu poet Jigar Moradabadi’s ‘shagird’ (disciple) who brought him to Mumbai to write songs for Hindi films.
 
In 1945, he got his first break in A R Kardar’s “Shahjehan”. To think that he was reluctant to join the film industry at first, only to write more than 3000 songs for about 700 films. He was the first lyricist to receive the Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1994, that too at the age of 75 after spending more than 50 years in the industry. He was the only lyricist who wrote in all the styles right from a Qawwali, bhajan, mujra, cabaret to Ghazals and folk songs.


 
“Other than being a great lyricist, Majrooh was also a noted Urdu poet and had written many books. He was also an important figure in the Progressive Writers’ Movement. While he was establishing himself as a lyricist, his Left leanings got him into trouble. During one of the meetings organised for the mill workers, he recited a poem that was written against Jawaharlal Nehru. He refused to render an apology for the same and was jailed in 1949 along with actor Balraj Sahni. During his two years in prison, he continued to write meaningful songs and poems,” reported Indian Express.
 
Here are the lines that got him in trouble:
 
मन में जहर डॉलर के बसा के
फिरती है भारत की अहिंसा
खादी के केंचुल को पहनकर
ये केंचुल लहराने न पाए
अमन का झंडा इस धरती पर
किसने कहा लहराने न पाए
ये भी कोई हिटलर का है चेला
मार लो साथ जाने न पाए
कॉमनवेल्थ का दास है नेहरू
मार ले साथी जाने न पाए
 
(The non-violence in India has filled its heart with the poison of the dollar. Let this snake-skin not disguise itself in khaadi. Who said the flag of peace cannot be raised on this land? This looks like an acolyte of Hitler. Nehru is Commonwealth’s slave. Kill him, companion, make sure he doesn’t escape- translated here) 
 
The order to arrest him was given by none other than Morarji Desai, the then governor of Bombay and later Prime Minister of India.
 
“A workers’ agitation was on in Bombay in those days. In one such labour rally, Majrooh recited a poem and called Jawaharlal Nehru ‘a slave of the Commonwealth’ and ‘a Hitler’. An arrest warrant was issued for Majrooh by the government of Bombay State. Majrooh went underground and eluded the police. But when a meeting of progressive writers was organised in 1951 to protest the incarceration of fellow communist writers Sajjad Zaheer and Faiz Ahmed Faiz in Pakistan’s Rawalpindi conspiracy case, the fiery poet came out of hiding. His was a strong voice in the meeting, and he was arrested as soon as he descended from the stage. Majrooh was lodged in Bombay’s Arthur Road Jail for a year,” reported Dawn.
 
“In 1962, during the Sino-Indian war, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru initiated a crackdown on communist sympathisers, among them, famous Urdu poet Majrooh Sultanpuri, who was forced to go underground. “But his weakness was mushaira. One day, there was a mushaira planned at Nagpada, to which Sultanpuri was invited,” said Zubair Azmi, 52, a Madanpura resident, who is president of the Bhendi Bazaar Research Academy in Mumbai to Mumbai Mirror.
 
He recollected how Sultanpuri was arrested. “Sultanpuri could not resist, and arrived at the venue in a burqa to avoid prying eyes, Azmi said. Called on to stage, he recited his famous poem, `Teraa haath haath mein aa gaya’ to a packed venue. When he was descending the stage, Sergeant Huzur Khan, a fearsome-looking Pathan, arrested Sultanpuri. But then Khan went on recite the same verses Sultanpuri had recited at the gathering right back at him,” he said in the report.
 
“Years later the Communist Party would split, and Majrooh, now disillusioned, would give Urdu literature some unforgettable lines: “Hum ko junoon kya sikhlate ho/ hum the pareshan tumse zyada (Don’t teach me madness and revolution/ I was always ahead of you),” reported India Today magazine.
 
“His revolutionary zeal still evident when he says: “Yeh azadi fraud hai. That is why I never take part in any Independence Day function.” The anger at Nehru is still intact – “instead of agrarian reforms, he started us on a destructive industrialisation. But of all his pain, nothing perhaps cuts as sharp as the horror of the 1993 Bombay riots. For a week, the man whose words are part of our popular culture paced the floor of his terrace, gun in hand, afraid his family would be attacked. His own words, penned for Dev Anand’s Bambai ka Babu, best describe his pain: “Galiyan hain apne desh ki/ phir bhi hai jaise ajnabi/ kis ko kahe koi apna yahan (These are the streets of my country/ but they are almost unknown to me/ who can I call my own in this place?),” the report from 1996 said.
 
He could express deep and complicated emotions in the language of the masses. Considered as the film poet of the millennium, Majrooh Sultanpuri died of respiratory failure on May 24, 2000.
 
 He won his only Filmfare best lyricist award for the song “Chahunga mai tujhe saanjh savere” for the film ‘Dosti’ in 1965.
 
“Among his memorable songs were “Inhi logo ne le liya dupatta mera” (Pakeezah), “Teri bindiya re” (Abhimaan), “Nanhi kali sone chali” (Sujata), “Yeh lo main hari piya” (Aar Paar), “Kitna pyara vada hai” (caravan) and “Papa kehte hai bada naam karega” (Qayamat se qayamat tak). He penned lyrics for over 74 films for R D Burman with the most famous being ‘Teesri Manzil’, the evergreen blockbuster of the ’60s starring Shammi Kapoor and Asha Parekh and ‘Mela’ starring Sanjay Khan and Mumtaz,” reported Indian Express.
 
He was one of the most creatively productive lyricists of his time second only to Anand Bakshi. Perhaps nothing does more justice to his life than his own lyrics, from the film Khamoshi- “Aaj mein upar/ asmaan neeche/ aaj mein aage/ zamana hai peechhe (Today I am on top/ the sky’s below me/ today I am ahead/ the world’s behind me).”
 

The post When Majrooh Sultanpuri went to jail for writing poetry against Nehru appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Central University of Kerala: Assistant Professor, two students face wrath for dissent against administration https://sabrangindia.in/central-university-kerala-assistant-professor-two-students-face-wrath-dissent-against/ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:48:16 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2018/09/15/central-university-kerala-assistant-professor-two-students-face-wrath-dissent-against/ The Central University of Kerala (CUK) is again in the news now for all the wrong reasons. A senior PhD scholar was dismissed from the hostel following a police case and arrest after he broke a glass pane in the hostel. A professor who criticized it on the social media was also removed from the […]

The post Central University of Kerala: Assistant Professor, two students face wrath for dissent against administration appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> The Central University of Kerala (CUK) is again in the news now for all the wrong reasons. A senior PhD scholar was dismissed from the hostel following a police case and arrest after he broke a glass pane in the hostel. A professor who criticized it on the social media was also removed from the post of the head of the English and Comparative Literature Department while another student was dismissed for his Facebook post. And the University reportedly issued a circular on August 14 barring students and teachers of the institution against responding to the media on the issues.
 


Circular of the university forbidding employees reaching out to the media

The acts of the university authorities have invited sharp criticism and protest from students, academicians and civil rights activists alike.  The CUK chapter of the Ambedkar Students’ Association organised an event of collective reading on Ambedkar’s ‘Annihilation of Caste’ in the university on September 13. On September 11, the organisation had submitted its demands before the Pro-VC as the VC, Dr Gopakumar, was not available, and accordingly, a meeting has been arranged to be held between the students and the VC on September 18. Civil rights activists and academicians from Kerala expressed their solidarity and support to the democratic rights of the teachers and students of the CUK in a joint statement issued on September 9.  The Kasargod district committee of the Left Democratic Front has called for a comprehensive probe into the alleged irregularities in the university.

In another development, a few glass panes were broken during the protest march held by the SFI and DYFI to the campus on Wednesday, and the university authorities reportedly filed a police case against four students.  A protest is going on in the campus even as classes are being held as usual.

The incident related to the latest happenings took place in July. Ganthothi Nagaraju, a senior PhD scholar hailing from Telangana and active member of the Ambedkar Students Association, broke the glass pane of a fire alarm cabinet in the hostel. Nagaraju who had completed his MPhil from the University of Hyderabad was a close friend of Rohit Vemula (who committed suicide in 2016 protesting caste discrimination). He had lost his mother a month back and had not received his fellowship for months, and hence was understood to be mentally depressed and frustrated at the time.  He was reportedly suspended from the hostel on July 9. He admitted to the authorities of breaking the glass pane (which cost less than Rs 200) and got ready to pay fine for the same. But the authorities registered a complaint with the police, who arrested him on August 9 under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. He was remanded for 5 days on the trivial charge, before getting bail on August 14, but has to report to the Bekal police station every Saturday. Nagaraju was actively involved in the protests in the university for democratic rights, including better hostel facilities, and he has now been out of the hostel altogether.

Dr Prasad Pannian, associate professor and head of the Department of English and Comparative Literature at the CUK, put up a post on his Facebook wall extending solidarity to his student Nagaraju. Dr Pannian was then removed from the post of the Head of the Department on September 7.  Reports suggest that Dr Pannian was not in the good books of the administration as he used to question several moves taken by the authorities, especially when he was the Chief Vigilance Officer a few years back. The University authorities have also released a media statement on September 11, digging up old files against Dr Pannian, after the CUK received harsh criticism from all corners for the action against the assistant professor.

Akhil Thazheth, a student of MA International Relations and Political Science, was also dismissed on September 7 for the same reason – a post on Facebook which, the authorities say, was critical of the actions of the university. Akhil had posted a part of his Malayalam story on Facebook, after which he was suspended pending an inquiry on the matter on June 25, according to reports. The inquiry panel asked him to apologize in two sittings but he refused to maintain he hadn’t done anything wrong, and he was expelled.
Dismissal order of Akhil Thazheth

The Central University of Kerala was established in the state’s northernmost district of Kasargod in 2009.  It currently has more than 1,000 students in 17 postgraduate and research programmes. Since then the university has always had unrest and problems. Media reports suggest that there are around 70 cases in the Kerala High Court related to the CUK regarding recruitment scam, partisan acts, anti-Dalit moves etc. Several petitions have reportedly been filed on cases of denial of reservation, suspension of teachers, denial of admission to PhD programme, denial of reservation for the differently-abled etc. The petitions hint towards the actions the University has taken against several teachers, students and staff at different times.

There have also been reports that a CBI inquiry has been requested into the recruitment scam that took place in the university five years back. The Pro Vice-Chancellor Dr K Jayaprasad is the vice-president of the Kerala chapter of the Bharatheeya Vichara Kendram. Meanwhile, for the first time in the history of the University, Ganesh Chaturthi festival was reportedly celebrated in the auditorium in the campus last day, with the cooperation of students from North India. Onam, the state festival of Kerala, is the only festival that has been celebrated in the university until now.


Order removing Dr Prasad Pannian as head of department

Courtesy: Two Circles

The post Central University of Kerala: Assistant Professor, two students face wrath for dissent against administration appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> 67% Unlawful Activities Prevention Act Cases Ended In Acquittal/Discharge https://sabrangindia.in/67-unlawful-activities-prevention-act-cases-ended-acquittaldischarge/ Sat, 08 Sep 2018 07:40:36 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2018/09/08/67-unlawful-activities-prevention-act-cases-ended-acquittaldischarge/ Mumbai: Two-thirds of trials completed under a 51-year-old law used to arrest five human-rights activists recently ended in acquittal or discharge in 2016, the latest year for which national crime data are available.   As many as 22 of 33 cases (67%) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) ended in acquittal or discharge […]

The post 67% Unlawful Activities Prevention Act Cases Ended In Acquittal/Discharge appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]> Mumbai: Two-thirds of trials completed under a 51-year-old law used to arrest five human-rights activists recently ended in acquittal or discharge in 2016, the latest year for which national crime data are available.

BhimaKoregaon
 
As many as 22 of 33 cases (67%) under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) ended in acquittal or discharge in 2016, compared to 18% of cases that ended similarly under special and local laws (SLL), a category of laws applicable nationwide and which encompasses the UAPA, according to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data.
 
In 2015, 65 of 76 cases in which trials were completed under UAPA ended in acquittal or discharge. On average, 75% cases have ended in acquittal/discharge over three years ending 2016, as per our analysis of NCRB data.
 
On August 28, 2018, five activists–Sudha Bhardwaj, Gaurav Navlakha, Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves–were arrested from different parts of the country for allegedly inciting violence in the Bhima-Koregaon riots in Pune.
 
On January 1, 2018, a large number of Dalits, gathered at Bhima Koregaon to mark a 200-year-old historical event, were attacked by local groups opposed to the celebration. This led to widespread riots in the city and in other parts of Maharashtra.
 
On September 1, 2018, the Pune police sought more time to file chargesheets against five accused–Sudhir Dhawale, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Shoma Sen and Mahesh Raut–arrested on June 6, 2018, under the UAPA, also over alleged Maoist links in connection with the Bhima-Koregaon violence, the Hindustan Times reported on September 1, 2018.
 
Their 90-day judicial custody, which was to end on September 3, 2018, can be extended up to 180 days under the UAPA, if the investigation is not complete. In other cases, if the chargesheet is not filed within 90 days, bail can be granted to suspects.
 
Why critics call UAPA ‘Draconian’
The UAPA has often been criticised for being oppressive. “The dangerous thing about UAPA is that both TADA [Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act] and POTA [Prevention of Terrorism Act] had a sunset clause which UAPA does not,” said Susan Abraham, advocate at the Bombay High Court and wife of Vernon Gonsalves, one of the accused in the Bhima Koregaon riots case.
 
Under a “sunset” provision, a law will cease to have effect after a fixed point of time. “The UAPA is a permanent statute. Both TADA and POTA, because of the sunset clause, had a time limit of two years after which they had to be sent to the Parliament for a new lease of life,” added Abraham.
 
The other issue is that the law does not have the provision for anticipatory bail. “Bail is difficult because you have to prove that prima facie there is no case,” Abraham said, adding that the investigating agency now has six months instead of three for chargesheeting.
 
“The UAPA is not meant for convicting people, it is used to detain them,” alleged Mihir Desai, senior counsel at Bombay High Court. “Eventually, acquittals might happen but a considerable amount of time passes by and the person’s life is ruined. The burden of proof in usual matters falls on the police but under UAPA, the burden is now on the person accused to prove his innocence.”
 
More than 2,700 cases registered over 3 years; 3,548 cases pending investigation ending 2016
As many as 922 cases were reported under UAPA in 2016, down 5% from 2014 (976) and up 3% from 2015 (897), NCRB data show. Over 2,700 cases have been registered over three years ending 2016.

 
 
Manipur reported the most–327, or 35% of all UAPA cases–in 2016, nearly half the cases reported in 2014 (630). Assam came next (216), followed by Jammu and Kashmir (161) in 2016. All these are states are affected by insurgency/terrorism.

 
 
Of the 3,962 cases slated for investigation in 2016, the police was burdened with a backlog of 76% cases. As many as 3,548 cases were pending investigation at the end of 2016, with a pendency rate of 89.6%. The pendency rate is estimated in terms of cases pending investigation at the end of the year per total cases for investigation during the year.
 

Disposal Of Cases By Police, 2014-16
Year Cases Pending Investigation from Previous Year Cases for Investigation in the year Cases in Which Charge sheet Submitted Cases Disposed off by Police Pending Investigation at the End of the Year Pendency Percentage
2016 3040 3962 232 414 3548 89.6
2015 2549 3444 121 404 3040 88.2
2014 1857 2825 106 276 2549 90

Source: National Crime Records Bureau, 2014, 2015, 2016
 
In 2016, 1,488 cases were pending trial. Of these, 232 came in for trial that year, the remaining were held-over cases. Of these, trials were completed in 33 (22 acquitted/discharged and 11 convicted) cases.
 

Disposal of Cases By Courts, 2014-16
Year Cases Pending Trial from the Previous Year Cases Sent for Trial During the Year Trials Completed Cases Convicted Cases Acquitted/Discharged Pending Trial at the End of the Year Conviction Rate Pendency Percentage
2016 1256 232 33 11 22 1455 33.3 97.8
2015 1209 121 76 11 65 1253 14.5 94.2
2014 1144 106 33 9 24 1217 27.3 97.4

Source: National Crime Records Bureau, 2014, 2015, 2016
 
The conviction rate for cases under UAPA–cases convicted per cases in which trials were completed–in 2016 was 33%, as against 82% for all SLL cases, while the pendency percentage–cases pending trial per total cases for trial–stood at 97.8% in 2016, as against 82% for SLL cases.
 
What ‘unlawful activity’ means under the UAPA
The Act accords absolute power to the central government. Under subsection 1 of section 3, chapter 2, if the central government is of the opinion that an activity is unlawful then it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare it so.
 
Unlawful activity is that which “questions, disrupts” or “intends to disrupt”, “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India”, according to the Act. It objects to claims which may contribute to cession of any part of India or which may cause “disaffection” against India. These definitions also formed the foundation of two defunct terror laws: Terrorist and Disruptive Act, 1985 (TADA) and Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA).
 
TADA was allowed to lapse in 1995 and POTA was repealed in 2004. “Both were repealed because of growing public opinion against their misuse, but nothing like that can be done about UAPA,” said Abraham.
 
The UAPA, originally passed in 1967, imported provisions from the discontinued acts with amendments in 2004, 2008 and 2012. Till 2004, “unlawful” activities referred to actions related to secession and cession of territory. Following the 2004 amendment, “terrorist act” was added to the list of offences.
 
In 2012, UAPA was amended to further widen the definition of “terrorist act”. Now, threats to economic security–an umbrella term inclusive of food security, monetary and fiscal stability, etc; and actions like the counterfeiting of currency, raising of funds or the intention to aid organisations–were added to the original definition.
 
Clarifications regarding “proceeds from terrorism” were also provided in an addendum. These included “properties” identified as being used in, intended to be used in or derived from acts of terrorism. They could also be identified as “instruments” in any form, monetary or otherwise. The Act accords the power to the investigating authority and the courts to forfeit property before the actual conviction.
 
In 2016, UAPA cases were categorised under “offences against the state” in addition to crimes recorded under the Indian Penal Code.
 
UAPA cases against activists: Why the debate
GN Saibaba, a Delhi University professor, was arrested under the UAPA in May 2014 for being “an urban contact” of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) outfit in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. He was later sentenced for life in 2017. Many expressed outrage over his conviction because he is 90% disabled.  
 
Maoist leader Kobad Ghandy was booked under the UAPA in 2009. He was acquitted of charges under Section 20 and 38 (member of banned outfit and furthering its activities) of UAPA, but convicted for cheating, forgery and impersonation under provisions of the IPC in June 2016. Out on bail in 2017, he was re-arrested in days after his release by Jharkhand Police.
 
In the last two years, environmental activists like Thirumurugan Gandhi too have been implicated under the same law. Gandhi, who was arrested in August 2018, was an active participant in a campaign against the eight-lane Chennai-Salem green corridor project and the police firing on the anti-sterlite protestors in the Thoothukudi protests against the Sterlite Copper plant.
 
In the case of Saibaba, “no evidence proved the charges foisted against the professor”,  said Abraham. “His only fault was to be a part of the international and all India campaign against Operation Green Hunt. His case was registered in Delhi, there was no connection to any offence in Gadchiroli. Something similar happened with Hem Mishra, a Jawaharlal Nehru University student, who was arrested in Chhattisgarh but booked for something that happened in Gadchiroli. The Supreme Court says that ‘mere association’ with an event is not enough. Despite that, they were convicted.”
 
(Mallapur is an analyst with IndiaSpend. Chhetri, a graduate of Lady Shri Ram College for Women from Delhi, is an intern with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend
 

The post 67% Unlawful Activities Prevention Act Cases Ended In Acquittal/Discharge appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>