Shrinking space

Freedom of speech must be protected

The conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who represented Kerala’s Wayanad constituency in the present Lok Sabha, by a Surat court in a criminal defamation case connected to a speech he made while campaigning for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections in Kolar, Karnataka, and his disqualification from the lower house have predictably increased political heat. According to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act (1951), a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more is disqualified to be a Member of Parliament or state legislature. Although Mr Gandhi and the Congress are exploring legal recourse, various aspects of this development are worth debating in the broader political context. While Mr Gandhi’s comments on the Modi surname in the aforementioned speech were in poor taste, the defamation case filed by a member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is being seen as a move to target the Congress leader. This is one of the reasons why many Opposition parties, including those not particularly inclined to work with the Congress, have spoken against the outcome.

The charge of the Opposition, however, is not restricted to this particular matter. Fourteen political parties, led by the Congress, for instance, moved the Supreme Court last week with the argument that central agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation were being used against Opposition leaders. It is nobody’s case that the law should not take its own course, but the pattern over the past few years does raise legitimate questions. Besides politicians, activists and journalists have been arrested and investigated under various laws. Notably, people have been arrested in Delhi for printing posters against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. All this gives the impression that the space for dissent is rapidly shrinking in India. It is in this larger context that the conviction of Mr Gandhi becomes important, along with the use of criminal defamation law against political opponents. Such colonial laws made to protect the interests of an imperial power must be reviewed at the earliest. Although the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the law in 2016, its use against political opponents can cripple freedom of speech.
 

While Mr Gandhi’s matter will be closely followed if he decides to approach a higher court, Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code does provide for exceptions. Widening the scope of such exceptions in a reasonable manner can also help limit its use. Besides, the statute can retain provisions for civil defamation with reasonable exceptions. A lot of things are said during election campaigns and political parties must leave them for the voters to decide. At a broader level, using laws or law-enforcement agencies against political opponents and critics, in general, will not serve India well. Regrettably, the use or misuse of law and state agencies is neither new nor a monopoly of a particular party in office. Various state governments often react to criticism disproportionately. Common citizens have been arrested for sharing critical messages against state governments online or simply sharing a cartoon of a leader. The bigger problem is every such incident becomes a precedent and pushes India further on what is clearly a slippery slope.