Arrested development

Congress-led Karnataka Assembly has set a disturbing precedent

The Congress party in Karnataka appears to be emulating the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the Centre in its draconian approach to free speech. The Speaker of the Karnataka Assembly, K B Koliwad, has authorised a one-year jail sentence on two editors for writing critical and allegedly defamatory articles. This decision reflects the kind of legislative overreach that sets dangerous precedents in infringing constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, not to forget an unwritten foundational value of Indian democracy in accepting freedom of the press. Equally disturbing is the fact that one of the two articles, which was written in 2014 purportedly to defame Mr Koliwad even before he was appointed Speaker, was brought before the House privileges committee when he was its chairman. Surely minimum propriety demanded that he recused himself from hearing a case in the interests of impartiality. For the complainant to be the adjudicator can scarcely be deemed legitimate due process. The Speaker’s order exceeds the recommendation of the privileges committee. The second article in question was brought before the privileges committee, under another Congress MLA on a complaint by a BJP colleague this year, and was deemed “100 per cent defamatory”. Both rulings are deserving of unreserved censure. 

Although the powers of privileges committees in Parliament and Assemblies are fairly broad under the Constitution, their raison d’être is, ironically, to protect freedom of speech in the House and to ensure that the legislative business is not subject to coercion. How the two articles, defamatory or otherwise, met either of these criteria is not obvious. In the context of this specific case, it is also difficult not to view an element of intimidation embedded in the imposition of jail sentences by the Assembly resolution. As a letter from the Editors’ Guild of India points out, the privileges of the Assembly (as of Parliament) under which this action is taken is not even codified. “If individuals of the legislature feel that their reputations have been affected, they are free to take the matter to court against the journalists or publications and not act as complainant, prosecution and judge, as they did in this case,” the letter rightly states as it requests the Assembly to withdraw its resolution. 

The broader point to be made in the context of increasing intimidation of the Fourth Estate is that elected representatives, whether in the states or at the Centre, urgently need to acquire thicker skins. Criticism, however unfair, is part of the game for participants in an open democracy in which there are checks and balances in reasonably robust libel laws. Beyond that, perhaps MPs and MLAs would do well to understand the value of a free press which offers real-time access to what people are thinking. Without it, the susceptibility to missteps can be high — as Indira Gandhi learned to her cost in the electoral defeat she suffered in 1977. Mr Koliwad may have regained his sense of self-worth with these orders, but his public reputation may take a little longer to recover.