Binayak Sen's Trial
The judgment of the Chhattisgarh trial court, sentencing Binayak Sen to life imprisonment on charges of sedition and conspiracy, isn't just shocking due to the concerned judge's apparent waiver of the gaps in the prosecution's case.
In a wider context, it posits the spectre of intolerance against critics of state policy. The intent behind the law on sedition in the Indian Penal Code, as introduced by the British, was to enable the colonial state to deal with the fundamental contradiction between the illegitimacy of its rule and its attempt to try and legitimise that rule by criminalising those who sought to underline that contradiction.
That rupture between the state and the people it governs disappeared, in principle, with Independence. And so the Supreme Court in 1962 defined Section 124A (on sedition) as being applicable only when there was a clear incitement to violence or armed rebellion. Implicit in that definition is the recognition of the Constitutional right to free speech, and political activity, as long as it does not violate that red line of violent disaffection against the state.
In a wider context, it posits the spectre of intolerance against critics of state policy. The intent behind the law on sedition in the Indian Penal Code, as introduced by the British, was to enable the colonial state to deal with the fundamental contradiction between the illegitimacy of its rule and its attempt to try and legitimise that rule by criminalising those who sought to underline that contradiction.
That rupture between the state and the people it governs disappeared, in principle, with Independence. And so the Supreme Court in 1962 defined Section 124A (on sedition) as being applicable only when there was a clear incitement to violence or armed rebellion. Implicit in that definition is the recognition of the Constitutional right to free speech, and political activity, as long as it does not violate that red line of violent disaffection against the state.
That would mean keeping the space for political dissent open, recognising the valid possibility of many challenges to the state being legitimate in terms of the principles of the Constitution, even if they violate the letter of the law. The point is to negotiate that space to resolve conflict, not win a war and annex that space by force.
Comments
Post a Comment