Free speech lesson a delhi magistrate eloquently explains what freedom of expression means cops & courts take note

Free speech lesson a delhi magistrate eloquently explains what freedom of expression means cops & courts take note

A Delhi court’s four-page bail order should become mandatory reading for police and judicial officers everywhere, especially given these fraught times for free speech. While quickly freeing Ratan Lal, an associate professor of history at Delhi University’s Hindu College, arrested Friday night for a Facebook post on the Gyanvapi mosque controversy, chief metropolitan magistrate Siddhartha Malik gave a fine lesson in what free speech means – that another person’s view may offend you doesn’t mean that person has committed an offence, and a democracy is nothing without a wide diversity of opinion. Extraordinarily, Lal was booked under IPC Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion) on a complaint lodged by a local lawyer.

Malik noted that with over 130 crore Indians, any issue can have 130 crore different views and that feelings of hurt nursed by an individual cannot be equated with targeting an entire group or community. Significantly, given how the police use these laws, he said determining the presence or absence of intention to create animosity “by words” is a subjective exercise, and perceptions of those who read these words are subjective, too. As Malik explained, he personally found Lal’s post “distasteful” and “unnecessary” as a “proud follower of the Hindu religion”, but others may agree with the professor, and still others may have varying degrees of disagreement. Where’s the criminal offence in any of this?

But dangerously for Indian democracy, cops are not making these distinctions, and seem all too willing to create a crime where none exists. Obviously, there’s the motivation to please political masters, and 153A, 124A (sedition), 295 and 295A (blasphemy) or even UAPA are favourite options here. While a citizen’s right to report a crime is sacrosanct, the police’s job is to do due diligence. The lack of that is effectively making these laws tools of denunciation for partisans against political, and even personal, enemies. As the magistrate said, courts have to “adopt higher standards” before jailing citizens.

Let’s also note that the law in question, 153A, has seen a sharp rise in its use as a blunt instrument. Against 861 cases for investigation in 2015, there were 3,026 cases by 2020. Pendency at the police end spiked from 57% in 2015 to 64% in 2020. Courts completed 66 trials in 2015 with a low 13% conviction rate. Comparative figures for 2020 were 186 completed trials and 20% conviction. Such a record demands police officers exercising far greater circumspection before filing cases and, if they don’t, judicial officers ensuring that bails are granted without delay.