11

Mar

Right to Dissent :Path-breaking Ruling by Supreme Court

image

Today's Edition

New Delhi, 11 March 2024

Dr Satish Misra

A close-up of a person with glasses Description automatically generated

The Supreme Court last week gave a path-breaking ruling stating that the right to dissent is legitimate and lawful and must be treated as part of the right to lead a dignified life under the Constitution, underlining that every citizen of India has the right to be critical of the abrogation of Article 370 and the change of status of Jammu and Kashmir. 

Judgments like this and many others as on the issue of electoral bonds or staying the Central Government’s plan to close Maulana Azad Educational Foundation (MAEF) inspire and arouse hope as the Executive leaves no chance to curb, curtail, deny or suppress people’s rights. The role being played by the country’s judiciary to protect and uphold the rights of the weak, poor and minorities will go a long way to keep the nation together.        

A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices O.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled: “Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of the action of abrogation of Article 370 and the changed status of Jammu and Kashmir.”

The apex court criticised the Maharashtra state police’s FIR against Javed Ahmad Hajam, a professor at a college in Kolhapur, for posting three messages as status in a WhatsApp group of teachers and parents: “August 5 – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir and “14 August Happy Independence Day Pakistan and” Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy.”

Based on these, the  police in Kolhapur registered an FIR under section 153A of the IPC. The section deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, language etc., and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with a fine or with both.

The Supreme Court had set aside the Bombay Court order and quashed an FIR registered against Professor Javed Ahmad Hajam.

“The right to dissent in a legitimate and lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a). Every individual must respect the right of others to dissent. An opportunity to peacefully protest against the decisions of the government is an essential part of democracy. The right to dissent in a lawful manner must be treated as a part of the right to lead a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21”, the apex court stated clearly in its order.

“But the protest or dissent must be within the four corners of the modes permissible in a democratic set-up. It is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in accordance with Clause (2) of Article 19. In the present case the appellant has not at all crossed the line,” the apex court said.

Commenting on the WhatsApp status of Prof Hajam, the Supreme Court pointed out: “This is an expression of his individual view and his reaction to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and does not reflect any intention to do anything prohibited under Section 153-A. At best, it is a protest which is a part of his freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a).”

Setting aside the Bombay High Court ruling, the Supreme Court said, “The High Court has held that the possibility of stirring up the emotions of a group of people cannot be ruled out …As held by Vivian Bose J, the effect of the words used by the appellant on his WhatsApp status will have to be judged from standards of reasonable women and men. We cannot apply the standards of people with weak and vacillating minds. Our country has been a democratic republic for more than 75 years. The people of our country know the importance of democratic values. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the words will promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups. 

The test to be applied, the SC said is “not the effect of words on some individuals with weak minds or who see a danger in every hostile point of view. The test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of subsection (1)of Section 153-A of the IPC.”

“As regards the picture containing ‘Chand’ and below that the words ’14th August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan’, we are of the view that it will not attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A of the IPC,” the top court ruled.

“Every citizen has a right to extend good wishes to the citizens of other countries on their respective independence days,” the Supreme Court said.

“If a citizen of India extends good wishes to the citizens of Pakistan on 14th August, which is their Independence Day, there is nothing wrong with it. It is a gesture of goodwill. In such a case, it cannot be said that such acts will tend to create disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups. Motives cannot be attributed to the appellant only because he belongs to a particular religion,” the Supreme Court stressed.

In a significant statement, the top court said the time has come to enlighten and educate our police machinery on the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and the extent of reasonable restraint on their free speech and expression. They must be sensitised about the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, it said.

In yet another significant intervention, the Delhi High Court on 6 March stayed the central government’s plan to shut down the MAEF, an organization that provides educational aid to students and institutions from Muslim minorities in India.

The stay order was given by a two-judge bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora on a petition filed by a group of citizens. The petition challenged the Ministry of Minority Affairs’ order instructing the MAEF to initiate the closure process. The division bench also directed the Ministry to clarify its position on the issue and explain steps being taken to ensure the continuation of MAEF’s welfare schemes.

The country’s courts, notwithstanding many wrong verdicts, indeed are powerful sentinels and guardians of people’s rights and the Constitution. (Words 1075)

---------------

  • Share:

About Us

We must explain to you how all seds this mistakens idea off denouncing pleasures and praising pain was born and I will give you a completed accounts..

Contact Us

Contact Info

  • 70, Gyan Khand- 4, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh.
  • +91-9810533682
  • info@mediamap.co.in
  • Week Days: 09.00 to 18.00 Sunday: Closed