Here's an excellent piece by V Venkatesan breaking down the legal details associated with the FIR (and subsequent summons) issued against Ashis Nandy. It is a refreshing change from the usual equivocating defences of Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC (which criminalise "promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony" and "Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration" respectively) on grounds of maintaining civil harmony, national security, religious comity and what-not. Perhaps the best objection to these provisions is that of P Ananda Charlu, former President of the Indian National Congress:
"[S. 153A is] a dangerous piece of legislation and has been impolitic (among other reasons) by necessitating government to side with or to appear to side with one party as against another. In my humble judgment, it will only accentuate the evil which it is meant to remove. Far from healing the differences which still linger, or which now and then come to the surface, it would widen the gap by encouraging insidious men to do mischief in stealth…"
The point is similar to that made by Louis Brandeis when he noted that "sunlight is the best disinfectant"; the criminalization of politically unpalatable forms of speech merely pushes their expression underground, and thus prevents the State from taking positive steps to redress the grievances which lie at their root. More notable is the fact that Ananda Charlu was making his point in 1886, well before Brandeis, and at a time when freedom of speech in India was virtually non-existent. Ironically, not withstanding India's independence and the constitutional guarantees for the protection of speech, we now seem to have moved further away from Charlu's position than closer to it.
"[S. 153A is] a dangerous piece of legislation and has been impolitic (among other reasons) by necessitating government to side with or to appear to side with one party as against another. In my humble judgment, it will only accentuate the evil which it is meant to remove. Far from healing the differences which still linger, or which now and then come to the surface, it would widen the gap by encouraging insidious men to do mischief in stealth…"
The point is similar to that made by Louis Brandeis when he noted that "sunlight is the best disinfectant"; the criminalization of politically unpalatable forms of speech merely pushes their expression underground, and thus prevents the State from taking positive steps to redress the grievances which lie at their root. More notable is the fact that Ananda Charlu was making his point in 1886, well before Brandeis, and at a time when freedom of speech in India was virtually non-existent. Ironically, not withstanding India's independence and the constitutional guarantees for the protection of speech, we now seem to have moved further away from Charlu's position than closer to it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment