Protest needs protection from State power

A Supreme Court judge and High Court Bench said how rulers, police and their followers are wrong in terming the anti-CAA protestors as anti-national and wanted enough space for 'dissent' to secure the democracy.

The Supreme Court Judge Chandrachud has emphatically stated: "The blanket labelling of dissent as 'anti-national or anti-democratic' strikes at the heart of our commitment to protect constitutional values and the promotion of deliberative democracy".

In his talk in Ahmedabad, Justice Chandrachud said: "Protecting dissent is but a reminder that while a democratically elected government offers us a legitimate tool for development and social coordination, they can never claim a monopoly over the values and identities that define our plural society…The destruction of spaces for questioning and dissent destroys the basis of all growth - political, economic, cultural and social.

In this sense, dissent is a safety valve of democracy… Inherent in the liberal promise of the Constitution is a commitment to a plurality of opinion. A legitimate government committed to deliberate dialogue does not seek to restrict political contestation but welcomes it".

"The attack on dissent strikes at the heart of a dialogue-based democratic society and hence, a State is required to ensure that it deploys its machinery to protect the freedom of speech and expression within the bounds of law, and dismantle any attempt to instil fear or curb free speech.

The "true test" of a democracy is its ability to ensure the creation and protection of spaces where every individual can voice their opinion without the fear of retribution. The great threat to pluralism is the suppression of differences and silencing of popular and unpopular voices offering alternative or opposing views.

Suppression of intellect is the suppression of the conscience or the nation. National unity denotes a shared cultural value and a commitment to the fundamental ideals of Constitution in which all individuals are guaranteed not just fundamental rights but also the conditions for their free and safe exercise."

As a student of law, I wish this forms the ratio decidendi of a judgment of apex court with specific directions to the State not to suppress the expression through abuses and abusing the sedition law, besides providing a mechanism to punish the terror unleashed on protestors by State.

Protestors suffer brutal response of police

Response of police to protest is turning cruel and violent, while the local courts are refusing to see the obvious law-lessness and falsity of the charge. This is the most unexpected low in the contemporary society. The brutal State power is on display against anti-CAA protests all over.

While participating in anti-CAA protest march towards Parliament, girls of Jamia Millia Islamia were assaulted by policewomen and reported injuries in their private parts.

Doctors told the media: "More than 10-woman students have been hit on their private parts. We have found blunt injuries on some of the protesters… Some students have also suffered internal injuries as they have been hit on chest with lathis."

Media reported that two male students were also hit on private parts by cops and admitted to emergency.

Different students told a TV channel: (a) "I have been hit on my private parts by cops with boots. One of the woman cops took off my burqa and hit me on my private parts with a lathi." (b) "Cops were beating below the belt so that the camera could not capture it". (c) "They were pushing us so hard that we got stuck in stampede four or five times". (d) "There are women who have been injured in their sensitive parts. I have been hit in the elbow and abdomen.

They are hitting us with lathi below the belt so that it didn`t come in camera." (e) "Police hit me at my private part with feet. They are beating ladies, so I came to their rescue, they hit me with a stick at chest and back and hit me with legs at private part. The doctor has put me in the emergency".

Another male student was hit so badly that he fainted twice. He said: (f) "I was telling them please let us protest, but they were pushing us. We couldn`t escape as. They were hitting from the below at the private parts. I fainted twice".

After two months of violence at Delhi's Jamia University, some video clips emerged. Footage from the December 15 Jamia violence was released by Jamia Coordination Committee (JCC), shows Delhi Police personnel, entering the university's reading hall and beating up students who were studying, with lathis.

students can be seen sitting in the reading hall as the Delhi Police storm in and starts hitting them with batons and damaging property. The police continue beating up students as they tried to flee. Another video show some carrying the stones entering Jamia Library.

Is 'protest' anti-national?

The Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court resolved the dispute on nomenclature of protestors. Rules and their social media bhakts blame them as anti-nationals, while Opposition claim that it is their democratic right to protest an unreasonable law.

Bench said protesters cannot be called "anti-nationals" or "traitors" just because they oppose one law. The court has quashed a magistrate's order denying permission for holding a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Iftekhar Zakee Shaikh was seeking permission for holding peaceful protest in Majalgaon which the district authorities refused. He was compelled to go before the HC to pursue his protest.

The HC quashed the magistrate's order and said: "This court wants to express that such persons cannot be called as traitors, anti-nationals only because they want to oppose one law. It will be act of protest and only against the Government for the reason of CAA." It pointed out that the right to express themselves under Article 19 of the Constitution.

It was observed: "It can be said that though the order on face appears to be against everybody, in reality the order is against persons who want to agitate, to protest against CAA. At present such agitations are going on everywhere and there was no whisper of agitations of other nature in this region.

Thus, it can be said that there was no fairness and the order was not made honestly". The order looks like upholding the freedom of protest, but it in fact, imposed conditions like no slogans will be raised against the country, against any religion, against the unity and integrity of the country.

Thus, the permission is there for protest, but it is not enough being peaceful as the court wanted it to happen silently!

Protestors are displaying their 'nationalistic' credibility by waving the tricolour and reading out the preamble of the Constitution.

Rulers are blaming Opposition parties for this and calling the protests as anti-national in the same way Indira Gandhi described the Jayaprakash's movement for total revolution in 1974 as an excuse to impose Emergency.

(The writer is former Central Information Commissioner and Professor at Bennett University)