Can I Dissent?: The Road To Be An Un-Indian

Must Read

An Analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s Decision in Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh on Reservation

Reservation is one of the debatable realities of Indian constitution. This system got its roots from the exploitations due...

Explained: The Political Crisis in Nepal

On December 20th, K P Sharma Oli, the Prime Minister of Nepal dissolved the Lower House Parliament of the...

Can the Relatives of the Husband Attract Prosecution in Case of Triple Talaq?

The Supreme Court of India has recently made a judgement. It lays down that the relatives of the husband...

Explained: The Right to be Forgotten in India

Right to Privacy is an essential fundamental right which has been enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 21...

How will the New WhatsApp Privacy Policy Affect Us?

On January 4, 2020, the California based tech giant WhatsApp announced its new privacy law. It allows data integration...

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

Follow us


Our written Constitution guarantees freedom of Speech, but it does not guarantee freedom after the speech

Fali S. Nariman

Eminent lawyer Mr. Fali S. Nariman quoted the above words, remembering the speech by a prominent retired judge of the Court of Appeal of Malaysia made in a conference. The Judge may not have the persuasive value on the present Indian situation but by quoting him, Mr. Nariman had shot the bull’s eye.

The reference is made to the recent issue on speech of Kanhaiya Kumar, a comrade from JNU, some call him, who is charged for sedition, a controversial law as per which a person is punishable if he through words or by visible representation, brings or attempt to brings into hatred or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India.The essence of the crime of sedition consists in the intention with which the language is used. In the landmark judgment of Kedarnath Das vs. State of Bihar (1962), C.J. Sinha observed

comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to Government established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence”.

Here, the essence of discussion does not confine solely to the question as to whether the charges framed on Kanhaiya were appropriate, but hovers on the larger problem i.e., in a participative democracy can we not raise the question why? Can we not blame the government? Or can we not condemn ‘our’ selected government? Is the government always right? Is it immune from criticism? Or a more core issue, can we not dissent?

The incident has not escaped the eyes of those watching from abroad. The New York Times, after the incident, accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for its lynch mob mentality and its determination to silence dissent in university campuses in India. They had their own opinion, that may be true. But, can we determine the fact that we have the right to dissent? Or is it a trap to sedition, as the case of JNU suggests.

We must not forget that the essence of Indian democracy has been attained by the immense dissent by the freedom fighters against the British Raj. The extent of the dissent was the only reason why the provision of sedition was incorporated in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But ironically, the charge of sedition has been used more often by free India’s government than the colonial government did during the 77 years of its presence in the Penal Code. So evidently, the said section provides better utility to post independence leaders than the pre-independence rulers. But whether such utility is serving the nation in anyway should be the essence in determining whether such law should prevail or not.

Who decides the status ofbeing un-Indian?

India, being a diversity in itself, cannot be defined in just five letters (I-N-D-I-A). It’s not a definite diversity but an indefinite one. Speaking of which, one cannot have unanimity in all the ideas. In fact, dissent becomes inevitable in such a diverse community. The only thing which unites India, as it seems, is the idea to stand together, a ‘solemn resolution’ to constitute India in itself. This unanimous resolution determines the code of conduct among people and their representatives. And whenever there appears to be a sense of lawlessness i.e., a situation which lacks the code of consensus (not determined by the unanimous call) dissent becomes the prime duty.

So, while performing one’s duty, can the creator of lawlessness claim the defense of Sedition? Can an alleged violator claim protection from the aggrieved? Should the violator have the capacity at that moment to decide the next recourse of action? And if yes, then whether the violator should be allowed to do so? Definitely, the answer to the above questions shall be in the negative. Then why are the victims called un-Indian when they are very much serving India.

Obviously, the majority dictates as to what has to be done and thus emerges a sense of competition as to who is a bigger nationalist (as in our case). As a consequence, the ones with the dissenting opinion, are mixed with mud or declared to be anti-national or most commonly, condemned for sedition. This is a huge concern for those who consider their upbringing as a debt to the nation and thus wish to pay it off through reformation.

The time has compelled us to ponder again on the importance of freedom of thoughts in democracy and therefore, we must again remember the very passage from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. from the case of Abrams vs. United States, (1919) where he dissented and stated:

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.

Thus, this living nature of the Constitution can not only survive by the dictate of majoritarian but the diversity for which it is constituted should also be taken into account. For it is this very diversity which becomes the intrinsic part of the Constitution and if any of its part gets vitiated, then the whole functionality collapses.

Therefore, the idea of dissent must be viewed in this context. A living creature evolves due to the changes which took place from within. Similarly, in a nation, evolution starts with a pre-conceived idea (thesis) countered by an anti-idea (anti-thesis) which results in an emergence of synthesis, which is the resultant of the collision that occurred. Thus, dissent is natural and an intrinsic part of evolution. Naming it anti-national or seditious is wrong on the part of those who try to submerge this dissent and thereby hinder the whole process of evolution and development.

Latest News

High Court of Gauhati Hears PIL for Non-Implementation of Funds for Various Schemes in Nagaland

Introduction A PIL filed by the Global Trust Club raising the issue concerned with the non-implementation of schemes such as Swachh Bharat Mission in Nagaland...

Public Money Recovery Cannot Wait in Perpetuity To Suit Convenience of Particular Borrower: Calcutta High Court

Excerpt The Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court on 22nd January 2021, ruled that the recovery of public money cannot wait...

Supreme Court Refuses To Provide Protection From Arrest To ‘Tandav’ Team

The Supreme Court did not give any relief to actors and the makers of Tandav, an Amazon Prime Video Web Series who appealed for protection against their arrest. At least three cases have been filed in Uttar Pradesh against the makers of the series for the inappropriate depiction of the UP police, deities, and adverse portrayal of the character of PM. States like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar, Delhi, and Chandigarh also have similar cases filed.

Transferring Employee Without Justification To Another Place Where Post Does Not Exist Is Illegal and Arbitrary; Should Be Set Aside: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Excerpt A single-judge Bench consisting of Honorable Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy gave orders on the writ petition filed by the Petitioner seeking to issue a...

Supreme Court Extends Protection To CM Yediyurappa Against Arrest in a Corruption Case

The Supreme Court on Monday protected the Chief Minister of Karnataka and the former minister of industries Murugesh Nirani from the arrest pertaining to a case of alleged forgery over the withdrawal of approval given to a piece of land.

Centre’s Resistance To Draft EIA in All Vernacular Languages Questioned by the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court said that it cannot understand why the Centre is refusing from translating the Environment Impact Act (EIA) into all 22 vernacular languages mentioned in the eighth schedule of the Constitution.

Section 125 of CrPC Was Enacted To Achieve Social Justice for Women, Child and Infirm Parents: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court, while terming the statutory mandate for a financially capable man to maintain his wife, children and parents, a social legislature, it said that the proceeding under it is of a summary nature and is aimed at providing quick relief to the person in dire need.

Federal Court Rules That 1992 Term Limit Amendments To Michigan Constitution Were Lawful

Excerpt The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan last Wednesday ruled in favour of the Offices of the Secretary of State for...

Maryland’s County Circuit Court Sentences Sean Urbanski To Life in Prison for Murder of 2Lt. Richard Collins III

Excerpt On the 14th of January 2021, Prince George’s County Circuit Court in Maryland (US) sentenced Sean C. Urbanski to life in prison with the...

“Dismissal Without Inquiry Is Justified if Employee Did Not Prove Minimum Working Period”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the dispute relating to the termination of an employee without any disciplinary inquiry. Brief facts of the case The Respondent, Smt. Sureshwati was...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -