By Satya Prakash
The arrest of BJP Yuva Morcha leader Priyanka Sharma for posting a meme of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Facebook has raised serious questions about the state of free speech and dissent in India in general and the TMC-ruled state in particular.
Priyanka Sharma — who was arrested on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by TMC leader Vibhas Hazra — was on Saturday produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, which sent her to 14-day judicial custody.
Can a common man make fun of a political leader in a manner which may be objectionable but not so offensive to attract penal provisions?
Should a political leader invoke penal provisions and use the State’s might to deal with a person who is using imitation, humour and sarcasm against him/her?
What should be the threshold to set the law in motion against such a person in case he/she inadvertently crosses the boundaries of law and morality while making fun of a political leader?
One is reminded of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra, who was arrested on April 13, 2012 for circulating a picture spoofing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her party colleague Mukul Roy. The Maharashtra police had arrested Shaheen Dhada on November 20, 2012 for questioning in her Facebook post why Mumbai was shut down for Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray's funeral. Her friend Rinu Srinivasan too was arrested for 'liking' her post.
Puducherry businessman Ravi Srinivasan was arrested on October 31, 2012 for allegedly posting 'offensive' messages on Twitter about Congress leader P Chidambaram's son Karti Chidambaram.
The latest arrest in Howrah alludes to a disturbing trend in West Bengal where many BJP workers have been killed and subjected to violence, allegedly by TMC workers during last year’s panchayat polls and the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
There is nothing new about the culture of poll violence in West Bengal where workers of CPI(M) and Congress; and later workers of CPI(M) and TMC often treated each other as enemies rather political adversaries. But it was limited to polls and mostly between rival party workers.
But now things appear to have deteriorated to the extent that the state government is using its might to muzzle dissent in utter disregard to right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. According to reports, 25-year-old Sharma has been charged with defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and notorious Section 66A (transmitting offensive messages) of the Information Technology Act. She has also been booked under Section 67A of the Act which is invoked to deal with those publishing/transmitting material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form and attracts five-year jail and a maximum fine of Rs 10 lakh on first conviction.
If the reports about Sharma being booked under Section 66A of IT Act are true, the West Bengal police have committed contempt of the Supreme Court which declared the provision unconstitutional in March 2015. “We hold the Section (66A) unconstitutional on the grounds that it takes within its sweep protected speech that is innocent in nature. It is liable to have a chilling effect on free speech and, therefore, has to be struck down,” the top court had said while deciding a PIL filed by law student Shreya Singhal.
“In point of fact, Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net. Such is the reach of the Section and if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total,” it had said.
But despite Section 66A of the IT Act having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the dead provision is being invoked by the police in various states. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has filed a PIL in the top court highlighting that almost two dozen people have been prosecuted under the dead provision of the IT Act.
Justice Rohinton F Nariman, who was a part of the Bench that declared Section 66A unconstitutional, in January took strong exception to police invoking the dead provision of the IT Act. “We will send everyone to jail who ordered the arrests. We are going to take very strict action,” Justice Nariman had said.
While the latest case is bound to face judicial scrutiny, one thing is very clear. People do have a right to make fun of their political leaders in a democracy. Prosecuting those using humour and sarcasm might push them to violence — a proposition fraught with serious consequences for the Indian polity.
The constitutional framework of free speech authorises the State to impose only reasonable restrictions on free speech only on the basis of law in the interest of eight grounds mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Mere fear of suspicion of violence or disturbance of public order can’t be used to suppress free speech. To justify suppression of free speech there must be a reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. Anything less than clear and present danger can’t justify State action against free speech.
Public figures can’t expect the same degree of privacy as private persons, said the SC in R Rajagopal versus J Jayalalithaa (2006). Those ultra-sensitive to any type of comments should avoid being in politics.
People’s right
People do have a right to make fun of their political leaders in a democracy. Prosecuting those using humour and sarcasm might push them to violence — a proposition fraught with serious consequences for Indian polity.
from The Tribune http://bit.ly/2vSoJwy
via Today’s News Headlines
No comments: