Criminalization Of Dissent In India
Understanding Dissent and Its Criminalization
Dissent refers to the expression of opinions that differ from the prevailing government policies or mainstream viewpoints. It is a vital feature of a healthy democracy, protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Criminalization of dissent occurs when governments or authorities use criminal laws, often harsh and vaguely worded, to suppress or punish dissenting voices. This is often done by:
Filing criminal charges like sedition (Section 124A IPC)
Using provisions like unlawful assembly (Section 141 IPC)
Applying laws related to criminal intimidation, defamation, or even anti-terror laws to silence critics
Arresting protestors, journalists, activists on questionable grounds
Constitutional Safeguards
Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, security, public order, etc.
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, includes right to dissent without harassment.
Important Case Laws on Criminalization of Dissent
1. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
Facts: The petitioner was charged under Section 124A (sedition) IPC for speeches criticizing the government.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sedition but restricted its application to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder.
Significance: Laid down that mere criticism of the government is not sedition; only speech that incites violence is punishable. A landmark judgment safeguarding dissent within constitutional limits.
2. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1785
Facts: Concerned the use of sedition charges against political dissenters.
Judgment: The Court reaffirmed the restrictive application of sedition and urged caution in invoking the law.
Significance: Warned against misuse of sedition to curb legitimate dissent.
3. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, (2011) 8 SCC 785
Facts: Challenged the use of stringent anti-terror laws (UAPA) against activists and dissenters.
Judgment: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for balancing security and fundamental rights, calling for safeguarding dissent from overbroad application of such laws.
Significance: Recognized the risk of criminalizing dissent under anti-terror legislation.
4. Romila Thapar v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 946
Facts: Historian Romila Thapar faced threats and legal challenges for her critical views.
Judgment: The Court underscored academic freedom and the protection of dissent in democratic society.
Significance: Affirmed protection of dissent in academic and intellectual spheres.
5. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637
Facts: Petition challenging internet shutdowns and suppression of communication in Jammu and Kashmir post abrogation of Article 370.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that internet access is part of freedom of speech and any restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate.
Significance: Protected digital dissent and freedom of communication.
6. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568
Facts: Highlighted excessive police action and suppression of protests.
Judgment: Court issued guidelines for the police to respect protestors’ rights and avoid unlawful arrests.
Significance: Prevented criminalization of lawful protests and dissent.
7. Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, AIR 1962 SC 527
Facts: Concerns preventive detention of a political activist for dissent.
Judgment: Court held preventive detention must meet strict criteria; arbitrary detention violates fundamental rights.
Significance: Guarded against misuse of preventive detention laws to stifle dissent.
Contemporary Issues in Criminalization of Dissent
Use of sedition laws against journalists, students, activists.
Charging dissenters under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).
Frequent internet shutdowns to curb protests.
Criminal cases under Section 144 (unlawful assembly) to prevent gatherings.
Use of defamation laws to silence criticism.
Summary Table: Criminalization of Dissent in India
| Issue/Provision | Judicial Position / Notes |
|---|---|
| Sedition (Section 124A IPC) | Only applies to incitement of violence, not mere criticism. |
| Freedom of Speech (Art 19) | Fundamental right subject to reasonable restrictions. |
| Anti-terror laws | Must not be used to suppress peaceful dissent. |
| Preventive detention | Requires strict procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. |
| Internet shutdowns | Must be proportionate and legally justified. |
| Police conduct | Must respect rights of protestors and avoid arbitrary arrests. |
Conclusion
The criminalization of dissent poses a grave threat to democracy and constitutional freedoms in India. While the state has legitimate interests in maintaining law and order, the Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently stressed that dissent must be protected as a constitutional right. Laws like sedition and anti-terror statutes must be applied narrowly and cautiously to prevent misuse. Judicial vigilance remains critical in safeguarding the space for dissent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments