Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!
SHARE:
The right to dissent
Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment
- Shaheen Bagh case: In 2021, in the background of ongoing farmer’s protests, a review petition on the Shaheen Bagh protest was filed in the Supreme Court. The court refused to review its earlier verdict which had declared that "there was no absolute right to protest", and it could be subjected to the orders of the authority regarding the place and time.
- Morlity versus State security: This brings into focus the battle between morality and state security, freedom, and responsibility. On one hand, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that any protest should not turn into violent chaos. But on the other hand, public protests are the hallmark of a free, democratic society, where the voice of the people should be heard by those in power and decisions be reached after proper discussion and consultation.
- Freedoms: In order to preserve the democratic fabric of the Indian society, it is the responsibility of stakeholders in a democracy that all freedoms under Article 19 of the Constitution shouldn’t be seriously impaired.
- Significance of "Right to Dissent":
- Fundamental Right: The right to protest peacefully is enshrined in the Indian Constitution — Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(1)(b) assures citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
- Historical context: The background of the Indian Constitution was the rigorous anti-colonial struggle, within which the seeds of a political public sphere and democratic constitution were sown. The Indian people fought hard and long to publicly express their views on colonial policies and laws and form a public opinion against them. Many were jailed for long terms, and the Constituent Assembly was alive to that pain.
- Checking abuse of power: The right to form associations is required for political purposes — for instance, to collectively challenge government decisions and to even aim, peacefully and legally, to displace the government, to not merely check abuse of power but to wrest power. The right to peaceably assemble allows political parties and citizenship bodies such as university-based student groups to question and object to acts of the government by demonstrations, agitations and public meetings, to launch sustained protest movements.
- People as watchdogs: Aware citizens act as watchdogs and constantly monitor governments' acts, which provides feedback to the governments about their policies and actions after which the concerned government, through consultation, meetings and discussion, recognizes and rectifies its mistakes.
- Supreme Court’s observation: In Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors. case (2012), the Supreme Court had stated, “Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.”
- Challenge to Right to Dissent: Any form of public action to challenge the government’s proposals or decisions is also constitutionally legitimate, as long as it is done peacefully. Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. These reasonable restrictions are imposed in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense. In the recent review petition, the petitioners apprehended that the observations in the Shaheen Bagh judgment against the indefinite occupation of public space may prove to be a license in the hands of the police to commit atrocities on the legitimate voice of protest. In Feb 2021, not only the protesting farmers but also their supporters, including comedians and journalists, were charged with the Sedition. Any arbitrary restraint on the exercise of such rights — for instance, imposing Section 144 — shows the inability of the government to tolerate dissent.
- Summary: India needs a fair and effective adjudicative mechanism in constitutional matters can meaningfully prevent agitation on the street. Social movements could be less radical and less oppositional when the issues could be effectively sorted out by way of fair litigation means. Courts need to ensure timely adjudication to release the steam. In the United Kingdom there exists a robust public enquiry system that processes ecological demands, integrates them into the political system, and minimizes radicalization of the movement arising out of exclusion and marginalization. On part of citizens, there is a need to imbibe a civic culture that is characterized by the acceptance of the authority of the state and a belief in participation in civic duties.
COMMENTS