French Nobel laureate Romain Rolland described Vedic scholar and Hindu reformer Swami Dayananda as a thinking hero of action, who firmly believed that amongst all evil practices, idol worship was to be scrapped first to make Hindus truly a loving, respectable world community. As a child, Dayananda had revolted and refused to accept Siva idol or any other as an object of worship. In 1876, one Rev lucas asked Swamiji what he would do if he were marched to a canon and told to prostrate himself before an idol, defying which, he would be blown to pieces. Swamiji had promptly replied, “Blow me away.”
Now, so far as Saraswati Vandana is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is a prayer to a goddess, albeit of learning. An average Hindu, even one not believing in idol worship, may not feel the discordance in participating in a Saraswati Vandana too seriously because of his normal surroundings. But to force a Muslim child to sing in praise of a Hindi goddess is an act which goes against the very core of his religion, namely, idol worship, amounting to gross interference with his fundamental of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom to practise one’s religion.
The Cuttack Circuit Bench centennial function was expensive and more pompous than necessary. Such events of history are not celebrated, just observed for the heck of it because it hardly does any good to the ordinary citizen who is not even allowed to watch what’s happening there. Judiciary has often stressed the importance of Rule of law, which alone can restore order and peace in any State. India is a secular republic. No matter how big the number of Hindus, no State-funded function can have a Hindu ritual or tinge as that would be legally wrong for offending secularism. It is discussed in public domains that the pompous event opened with a Saraswati Vandana in the presence of the ‘core judiciary’ of the country. Strangely and shockingly, not a single judicial luminary reacted against the violation of Rule of law. Several eminent citizens, who are well-versed with the Constitutional spirit, felt hurt not because a grave crime was committed but that the protectors-interpreters of the law could not even sense a hugely wrong thing was happening. The chief, who is a great human being with a huge heart for the common man, too failed to notice the blunder. Ninety-three-year-old Justice Rajendra Sachar had blasted the non-secular elements, who forced Hindu prayers in public schools, by terming the practice outlandish and unlawful. He had made it amply clear that the Saraswati Vandana is a prayer to a goddess. An average Hindu, not believing in idol worship, may not feel the discordance in participating in a Saraswati Vandana too seriously because of his normal surroundings. But to force a Muslim child to sing in praise of a Hindi goddess is an act which goes against the very core of his religion, namely, idol worship, amounting to gross interference with his fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
The judiciary does not seem to worry about another very critical, contentious issue now rocking the country without any solution. The sedition law is horribly archaic and flawed to the brim. The colonial-era law was only intended to suppress the voice of freedom then. Britain itself abolished sedition as a criminal offence in 2009 duly considering it to be a relic of an era when freedom of expression was not considered a right. Sedition was abolished through the Coroners and Under Gordon Brown’s labour Government. Three offences were abolished: sedition and seditious libel; defamatory libel; and offence of obscene libel. Freedom of speech is now the touchstone of democracy, and the right of individuals to criticise the State is crucial to maintaining democratic freedom. Britain’s law Commission had recommended abolition of the sedition law way back in 1977. Obviously, some obsolete laws in India are used only to justify retention of similar laws actively used to suppress political dissent and restrict Press freedom.
Sedition and criminal libel evolved from some of Britain’s oldest laws, such as the Statute of Westminster 1275 when the divine right of the King and the principles of a feudal society were not questioned. Seditious libel (criticism of the Government) was closely linked to blasphemous libel (criticism of religion) since Church and State were interchangeable at the time. Criminal libel and seditious libel laws were used extensively in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, most famously against the renegade MP and civil rights campaigner John Wilkes, whose publication North Briton was declared a seditious libel and publicly burned.
India is called the largest socialist democracy, wrongly or rightly. The Constitutional masters incorporated all the basic freedoms to be enjoyed by the law-abiding citizen, including that of freedom of expression, to make public realise what’s wrong with the State institutions, systems and functionaries. In a democratic country run by representatives of the people, by the people and for the people, every citizen has a right to put forth his opinions, ideas, and grievances.
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which defines the sedition law simply puts a blot on the right to freedom of speech by considering it a criminal offence to express and also propagate, among others, any kind of disaffection for the Government. Had it not been for the strong expression and aggression of our freedom fighters, we might have been bearing the drudgery of colonialism for a much longer period than we had. It may be borne well in mind that the voice of the freedom fighters was invariably raised not against the ruling cohorts who erred unforgivably. Strangely, even after such a historical experience, the IPC validates the sedition law even today and no superior court takes cognisance to initiate a process to scrap it right away. The Indian judiciary is powerful enough to rule and pass orders without overstepping Constitutional jurisdiction. Just a couple of years ago, human rights activist Dr Binayak Sen was put to trial under the sedition law, which revealed some of the archaic laws are still in place only to be misused for suppression of strong voices raised to force the State functionaries to remain on toes. The Kanhaiya Kumar case is not at all an example here. Maybe, the core framework permits it to remain in place, but the judiciary in which Indians repose maximum faith should take proactive steps to review the Constitution for removing grave flaws.
lastly, a word about the Supreme Court ruling on the ban of diesel vehicles polluting air commonly used over a vast expanse of land. But very painfully, judges sitting in Delhi only pass orders by which only Delhi-NCR residents would benefit. Why the orders are not applicable to the whole of India bothers the Indians living even abroad. All human-friendly rulings must by default apply to the whole Union. The same way in Odisha, High Court judges rule strongly against erring civic authorities for garbage heaps, choked drains and road encroachment apart from noise pollution, et cetera, that affect their functioning or those issues that irritate them. The CJI, who is by all means a great human being because of an enviably compassionate heart, may do great justice by ensuring all people-friendly rulings by any superior court apply to the whole nation alike.
The most serious appeal to CJI, His lordship TS Thakur, before closing this note, is to have an order dumped on the revelling organisers of the Circuit Bench centenary event not to squander money lavishly but to save the same to help poor litigants fend for themselves with some State help.
(The writer is a core member of Transparency International, Odisha)