Terror And Sedition Laws Cannot Be Used Against Unarmed Protestors
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-06-17 04:00:01
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
In its order granting bail to activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, Asif Tanha, in jail for over a year in connection with the riots in North-east Delhi and the anti-CAA-NRC protests, for grave charges that included terror activity under the stringent UAPA, the Delhi High Court said that "it seems that in its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the state, the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy".
Most governments cannot digest criticism. They fail to understand that at any given time, there would be strong disagreement with some of their policies in a large section of the population. Within the dissenters, there would be individuals and groups who would highlight the alleged defects in the policy and would start a movement to involve as many people as they can to protest against it. This activity of raising the banner of protest and uniting people under it is a democratic right and cannot be termed as terror activity. Unarmed protest, as the court rightly said, is a fundamental right in a democracy.
Calling the inferences drawn in the instant case from the factual allegations by the prosecuting agency to be "superfluous verbiage, hyperbole and stretched" the court said that "the foundations of our nation stand on surer footing than to be likely to be shaken by a protest, however vicious, organized by a tribe of college students". It also said that "it was not the intent, nor purpose of enacting the UAPA, that other offences of the usual kind, however grave, egregious or heinous should also be covered by UAPA."
The government must pay heed to the repeated judicial interpretation of terror and sedition laws and stop using these draconian laws against peaceful protests. The need to allow space for dissent cannot be overstressed. This does not mean that the government cannot work or implement its policies. Ideally, it must enter into a consultative process and amend the policy by taking into account the reservations people have against it. If not, it can go ahead and implement it as it wants to. But it should not, must not, muzzle dissent or prosecute those who protest against the policies by using draconian laws. The courts must also act faster in granting bail to such accused as at most times they spend a long time in jail (more than one year in the present case) without any reason.
