Citizens Can't Be Put Behind Bars Simply Because They Disagree With State Policies : Delhi Court In Disha Ravi Bail Order

In the order granting bail to 22-year old climate activist Disha Ravi, a Sessions Court in Delhi has made certain strong observations against the use of sedition law to curb dissent by jailing dissenting citizens."Citizens are conscience keepers of government in any democratic Nation. They cannot be put behind the bars simply because they choose to disagree with the State policies", Additional Sessions Judge Dharmender Rana observed in the bail order.The order quoted from the judgment in Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar v. Emperor AIR 1942 FC22 to say that the "offence of sedition cannot be invoked to minister to the wounded vanity of the governments"."Difference of opinion,disagreement, divergence, dissent, or for that matter, even disapprobation, are recognised legitimate tools to infuse objectivity instate policies. An aware and assertive citizenry, in contradistinction with an indifferent or docile citizenry, is indisputably a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy", the Court added.The judge also mentioned about the ethos of the ancient Indian civilization, which was to respect divergent opinions."This 5000 years old civilization of ours has never been averse to ideas from varied quarters. The following couplet in Rig Veda embodies our cultural ethos expressing our respect for divergent opinions", the order said quoting a couplet meaning "Let noble thoughts come from all directions" from Rig Veda.Breaking: Citizens are conscience keepers of government in any democratic Nation. They cannot be put behind the bars simply because they choose to disagree with the State policies: Delhi Court in #DishaRavi Bail Order https://t.co/0aAFeQCAHt— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) February 23, 2021 Significant observations from the order are as follows :Right to freedom of speech and expression includes right to seek global opinion"The right to dissent is firmly enshrined under Article 19 of The Constitution of India. In my considered opinion the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to seek a global audience. There are no geographical barriers on communication. A Citizen has the fundamental rights to use the best means of imparting and receiving communication, as long as the same is permissible under the four corners of law and as such have access to audience abroad".Creation of toolkit not an offence"In my considered opinion creation of a WhatsApp group or being editor of an innocuous Toolkit is not an offence. Further, since the link with the said toolkit or PJF has not been found to be objectionable, mere deletion of the WhatsApp chat to destroy the evidence linking her with the toolkit and PJF also becomes meaningless. Further, it is rightly pointed out by Ld Defence Counsel that the protest march was duly permitted by the Delhi police therefore there is nothing wrong in co-accused Shantanu reaching Delhi to attend the protest march. Still further, the attempt to conceal her identity seems to be nothing more than an anxious effort to stay away from unnecessary controversies"Nothing on record to suggest Disha Ravi subscribed to any secessionist idea"It would be worthwhile to observe that there is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant accused subscribed to any secessionist idea""Further, the prosecution has, except for pointing out that applicant/accused forwarded the toolkit to Ms. Greta Thunberg, failed to point out as to how the applicant/accused gave global audience to the 'secessionist elements'" No Evidence for violence"It is further highlighted that the applicant/accused along with her associates under the pretext of protesting against the farm laws have resolved to vandalize Indian Embassies and specifically attack symbols of India i.e. Yoga and Chai. Except for a bare assertion, no evidence has been brought to my notice to support the contention that any violence took place at any of the Indian Embassies pursuant to the sinister designs of the applicant/accused and her co-conspirators"'Propitious Anticipations Cannot Restrict Personal Liberty"I am conscious of the fact that it is very difficult to collect evidence for the offence of conspiracy but I'm equally conscious of the fact that what is difficult to prove for the prosecution in the affirmative is virtually impossible for the defence to prove in the negative. I'm also conscious of the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage and police is in the process of collecting more evidence, however, the investigating agency made a conscious choice to arrest the applicant accused upon the strength of material so far collected and now they cannot ...

Citizens Can't Be Put Behind Bars Simply Because They Disagree With State Policies : Delhi Court In Disha Ravi Bail Order

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

'Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to seek a global audience'

Tags