137th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra49026232728117092 Tamil Nadu2850242275754690 Andhra Pradesh2069601204641842 Karnataka164924842322998 Delhi1427231282324082 Uttar Pradesh113378668341981 West Bengal89666630601954 Bihar7179446294400 Gujarat68855517922604 Assam5549737225132 Rajasthan4941835186763 Odisha4255028698292 Haryana4005433444467 Madhya Pradesh3729827621962 Kerala3170019147103 Jammu and Kashmir2392716218449 Punjab2193014040539 Jharkhand165427503154 Chhatisgarh11408831987 Uttarakhand89015731112 Goa7947559570 Telangana751354330615 Tripura6014408437 Puducherry5123291475 Manipur3466192610 Himachal Pradesh3206200813 Nagaland26578247 Arunachal Pradesh204913263 Chandigarh137482023 Meghalaya10234236 Sikkim8544061 Mizoram5672890
Opinion DC Comment 13 Jun 2019 SC stresses personal ...

SC stresses personal liberty is sacrosanct

DECCAN CHRONICLE
Published Jun 13, 2019, 2:26 am IST
Updated Jun 13, 2019, 2:26 am IST
As the court rightly said, this isn’t about the merit of such posts as with the personal liberty of citizens.
Supreme Court of India (Photo: Asian Age)
 Supreme Court of India (Photo: Asian Age)

The Supreme Court’s action in freeing from judicial custody the journalist arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police in an unwarranted action carries a significant message about liberty being sacrosanct. The question is whether the message is getting through to the bureaucracy and police, that seems overly concerned about protecting the image of their political masters. On the very day the Supreme Court freed journalist Prashant Kanojia, the UP government arrested a third member of a Noida-based television channel that had allegedly aired defamatory content against the UP chief minister.

State governments in West Bengal, Karnataka, UP and Tamil Nadu have recently been hauled up by the courts for similar actions, that have no real basis in law. It’s a wonder why governments  pick specific social media posts or TV remarks from the millions of bytes aired online or broadcast daily, and blatantly ignoring fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

 

As the court rightly said, this isn’t about the merit of such posts as with the personal liberty of citizens.

The disdain for broad principles so well enunciated in the Constitution betrays the fact that the bureaucracy in certain states are so beholden to the powers that be that they will go to any lengths to please their masters. Dragging in clauses regarding spreading disaffection among people to justify such arrests of journalists is further proof of motivated action by officialdom. Such actions will not stand scrutiny in a country of freedom and individual rights, but the Supreme Court has to step in even in vacation time to deter errant behaviour by the State. The judges themselves noted that the content on the social media is so vituperative these days as to warrant less attention to what has become a social trend, where individuals air their rant against authority in general. It stands to reason that those who seek public office must cultivate a certain disdain as an attitude to vague criticism or just plain abuse.

 

The lack of concern for procedure makes the UP issue considerably worse. As the judges pointed out, this was no murder case; but even in such cases there are legal methods for authority to act. Compliant magistrates and police personnel must face the most severe action if such flagrant illegalities in proceeding against citizens are to be curbed. So completely sold on the outcome does the State seem that the end always seems to justify the means employed in these arrests and remand. This is an even greater affront to democratic principles than some person forwarding a social media message lampooning politicians, which may be unwelcome if it is prurient and yet the freedom of speech and expression of the person has to be upheld. In a changing landscape of social media freedoms, netizens and others must help the system to accept and adjust to rapid changes.

 

...




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT