Editorial: Dissent and Democracy

Dissent over policy actions of a government should not become a ground to accuse someone of creating enmity between groups or disharmony.

Dissent and disagreement form the essence of a thriving democracy. Unfortunately, there has been a growing tendency among those in the present ruling dispensation to equate critics of the government with anti-nationals and invoke the draconian sedition law to silence the voices of dissent.

In this gloomy backdrop, the Supreme Court’s ruling that every citizen has a right to criticise any policy of the government is a welcome development. It reaffirms public faith in the judiciary to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens.

While quashing an FIR registered against a professor for his comments denouncing the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir, the apex court upheld the cherished principle of freedom of speech and expression. The case revolved around two WhatsApp status updates posted by Professor Javed Ahmad Hajam working at a college in Maharashtra’s Kolhapur.

Hailing from Kashmir, he expressed his displeasure over ending the special status to J&K. The Maharashtra police filed an FIR under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that Professor Hajam’s messages promoted enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race and place of birth.

However, the SC bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered a verdict that reaffirmed the fundamental principles of democracy. Dissent over policy actions of a government should not become a ground to accuse someone of creating enmity between groups or disharmony. Dissent and democracy coexist. That is possible because the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech.

The court’s judgement must serve as an eye-opener for the police who often tend to file cases on unreasonable grounds and make arbitrary arrests. The SC has rightly pointed out that if every criticism or protest of the actions of the state is to be held as an offence under Section 153-A, democracy, which is an essential feature of the Constitution, will not survive.

It has also made it clear that the right to dissent in a lawful manner is an integral part of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). In December last year, the SC had upheld the Central government’s 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370.

However, voices of disapproval have not yet died down. The professor’s case has brought under judicial and public scrutiny the controversial role of the police. Overzealous cops blew things out of proportion to demonise a dissenter. The court said the time had come to enlighten and educate our police machinery about the concept of freedom of speech and expression and the extent of reasonable restraint on this freedom. The SC’s suggestion that police personnel must be sensitised to the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution needs to be given serious consideration.

The registration of cases on flimsy grounds demonstrates police highhandedness.

This verdict will, hopefully, deter cops from branding citizens as anti-national merely on the basis of their social media posts.