TheLeaflet
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Why Leaflet
    • Leaflet Team
  • Constitutional Law
  • Human Rights
  • Culture
    • Book Review
    • Movie Review
    • Poetry
  • Humour
  • Issues
    • Analysis
    • Case update
    • Child’s Rights
    • Civil Law
    • Coronavirus and the Law
    • Criminal Justice System
    • Criminal Law
    • Dalit Rights
    • Editor’s Desk
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fundamental Rights
    • Gender Rights
    • Governance
    • Health Rights
    • History
    • International Law
    • Judiciary
    • Juvenile Justice
    • Know Your Rights
    • Labour Law
    • Law and Technology
    • Litigation
    • Mental Health
    • Policy
    • Politics
    • Right To Informtion
    • Sexual Offences
    • Social Justice
  • Leaflet Specials
    • Independence Day Special
    • Independence of judiciary
    • Right to Privacy
    • Special Issue: Emergency
    • The legacy of Ruth Ginsburg
    • Triple Talaq
    • Two years since Navtej Johar case
  • Videos
  • Historical Series
  • Contact us
    • Write For Us
    • Careers
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Why Leaflet
    • Leaflet Team
  • Constitutional Law
  • Human Rights
  • Culture
    • Book Review
    • Movie Review
    • Poetry
  • Humour
  • Issues
    • Analysis
    • Case update
    • Child’s Rights
    • Civil Law
    • Coronavirus and the Law
    • Criminal Justice System
    • Criminal Law
    • Dalit Rights
    • Editor’s Desk
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fundamental Rights
    • Gender Rights
    • Governance
    • Health Rights
    • History
    • International Law
    • Judiciary
    • Juvenile Justice
    • Know Your Rights
    • Labour Law
    • Law and Technology
    • Litigation
    • Mental Health
    • Policy
    • Politics
    • Right To Informtion
    • Sexual Offences
    • Social Justice
  • Leaflet Specials
    • Independence Day Special
    • Independence of judiciary
    • Right to Privacy
    • Special Issue: Emergency
    • The legacy of Ruth Ginsburg
    • Triple Talaq
    • Two years since Navtej Johar case
  • Videos
  • Historical Series
  • Contact us
    • Write For Us
    • Careers
No Result
View All Result
TheLeaflet
No Result
View All Result
in Analysis Criminal Law Democracy and Rule of Law Internet Rights

The Kerala Police Act – Amendment, And The Right To Dissent

N V Krishna KumarbyN V Krishna Kumar
November 30, 2020
in Analysis, Criminal Law, Democracy and Rule of Law, Internet Rights
The Kerala Police Act – Amendment, And The Right To Dissent

Source: Livelaw

The Kerala Government defended its recent move to regulate speech on the internet on grounds of addressing hate-speech in cyber space. N V KRISHNA KUMAR questions the need for such specific and overarching laws that curb dissent in light of the existing mechanism under criminal law.

——–

Speaking at an event organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association on February 24, 2020, Justice Deepak Gupta said that ‘Talking to the Bar about dissent is like taking coal to Newcastle. If anything, the Bar is a shrine for dissent.’

The Kerala Government, in its collective wisdom, tried to get in a law that could have given the police arbitrary powers to incarcerate a citizen. The amendment to the Kerala Police Act proposed three years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for those convicted of producing, publishing, or disseminating derogatory content through any means of communication to intimidate, insult or defame any person.

The government mooted the revision because a group of women activists took the law into their own hands. They confronted a blogger who used his YouTube channel to broadcast abusive and derogatory comments against them. The Kerala Government felt that the absence of a ‘strong’ law to prevent online slander results in many such cases of vigilantism.

At the core of it, this amendment would have resulted in an infringement of the right to dissent as granted by the Constitution — one of the most important rights guaranteed by our Constitution. As long as a person did not break the law or encourage strife, he has every right to differ not only from every other citizen but also those in power.

So what is behind the kerfuffle caused by this amendment?

The right to dissent

At the core of it, this amendment would have resulted in an infringement of the right to dissent as granted by the Constitution — one of the most important rights guaranteed by our Constitution. As long as a person did not break the law or encourage strife, he has every right to differ not only from every other citizen but also those in power. He has the right to propagate what he believed in.

Shorn of all legalese it means that in a democracy every citizen has a right to participate not only in the electoral process but also in the way in which their country is run. This right would become meaningless if that person were not able to criticise the actions of the government.

The Constitution grants every citizen the right not only to participate in the democratic process but also the right to express his views though they are totally contrary to the views of those in power. Of course, it is the responsibility of the individual(s) to ensure that these views are expressed in a peaceful manner. The cause of the individuals may not always be right. At the same time, the government may also not be in the right.

The justice underlined that when those in power claimed that they represented the will of all the people, it was a totally baseless claim. Inasmuch as they really didn’t represent the will of the entire people.

Speaking at an event organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association on February 24, 2020, Justice Deepak Gupta said, “Talking to the Bar about dissent is like taking coal to Newcastle. The Bar Room is the most unholy place where nothing is sacred, no reputation so unimpeachable that it cannot be blown to smithereens, no personality so towering that it cannot be brought crashing down, no character so pure that it cannot be torn to shreds, no idea so holy, that it cannot be disagreed with. That is the essence of dissent. If anything, the Bar is a shrine for dissent.”

The holy book: Constitution of India

The Preamble to the Constitution of India promises liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.

Justice Deepak Gupta continued, “These three freedoms are vehicles through which dissent can be expressed. The right to freedom of opinion and the right of freedom of conscience by themselves include the extremely important right to disagree. The right to disagree, the right to dissent and the right to take another point of view would inhere inherently in each and every citizen of the country.”

He further added, “Every society has its own rules and over a period of time when people only stick to the age-old rules and conventions, society degenerates. New thinkers are born when they disagree with well-accepted norms of society. If everybody follows the well-trodden path, no new paths will be created, no new explorations will be done and no new vistas will be found.”

The justice underlined that when those in power claimed that they represented the will of all the people, it was a totally baseless claim. Inasmuch as they really didn’t represent the will of the entire people.

Previously there was Section 66A, which has now been struck down by the Supreme Court of India. But today, with this section abolished, there is a general belief that there are no laws to safeguard against cyber bullying. 

Assuming that they represented more than 50% of the electorate, could it be said that the remaining 49% of the population had no voice whatsoever in running the country? Was it right to ask the remaining 49% to remain silent till the time of the next elections? The judge reiterated, “In my view, the answer has to be a big NO.”

The power of the Indian Penal Code 

On the flip side, how does one control cyber-bullying which is prevalent around the world: from the trivial trolling on social media, to targeted posts, anonymous stalking, and many other such online activities?

Previously there was Section 66A, which has now been struck down by the Supreme Court of India. But today, with this section abolished, there is a general belief that there are no laws to safeguard against cyber bullying.

Depending on the kind of cyber-bullying or any other action that is committed, there are enough laws under IPC which can be applied. While it’s true that no particular section may be applied directly, there are more than enough sections and provisions to deal with such cases.

However, looked at in totality, the Indian judiciary does have plenty of provisions to hold these acts accountable and mete out punishments.

According to N.S. Nappinai, lawyer at the Supreme Court of India, and founder of Cyber Saathi, “The key is in raising awareness among the public regarding existing laws, instill  a sense of responsibility as well as fear of retribution, and make the process of addressing cyber-crime grievances more approachable for everyone.”

Depending on the kind of cyber-bullying or any other action that is committed, there are enough laws under IPC which can be applied. While it’s true that no particular section may be applied directly, there are more than enough sections and provisions to deal with such cases.

There are huge challenges. It is best that everything is debated threadbare and then suitable laws are passed keeping in mind the consensus.

The Kerala government has withdrawn the controversial act to punish ‘offensive’ social media posts.

Long live Indian Democracy and Constitution!

(N V Krishnakumar is a senior advertising professional based in Mumbai with varied interests that include reading and writing. The views are personal.)

Tags: Cyber bullyingCyber laws in IndiaIndian Penal CodeInternet freedomKerala GovernmentKerala Police ActKerala Police Amendment Actright to dissentSlider Post

Related Posts

Farm Laws Are Unconstitutional; but Will Supreme Court Strike Them Down?
Farmers Rights

Government claim of “Consultation” with Farmers Nailed by Supreme Court and RTI

byM. SRIDHAR ACHARYULU
Ironic HC Order Makes Even Voter’s List Illegal: Shailesh Gandhi
Democracy and Rule of Law

Bombay HC on media trials: provides indicative list of what will amount to contempt of court

byThe Leaflet
Defenders of Human Rights Must Defend the Rule of Law for All
Freedom of the Press

What do Arnab Goswami’s WhatsApp Leaks Tell us About the State of our Democracy?

byMonica Dhanraj

Editor's Pick

India’s Polarised Media Reflects Crisis of Confidence in its Politics

India’s Polarised Media Reflects Crisis of Confidence in its Politics

byRevathi Siva Kumar

Munawar Faruqui:  Real Villain is Divisive Heartland Politics, Not Stand-up Comics

Munawar Faruqui: Real Villain is Divisive Heartland Politics, Not Stand-up Comics

byParsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr

Dilip Chhabria made crores designing cars, then why did he design creative ways to defraud banks?

Dilip Chhabria made crores designing cars, then why did he design creative ways to defraud banks?

byRamesh Menon

How Long Must Poorer Nations Wait for Access to Covid Vaccine?

How Long Must Poorer Nations Wait for Access to Covid Vaccine?

byIshupal Singh Kang

Latest by TheLeaflet

Farm Laws Are Unconstitutional; but Will Supreme Court Strike Them Down?

Government claim of “Consultation” with Farmers Nailed by Supreme Court and RTI

January 19, 2021
Ironic HC Order Makes Even Voter’s List Illegal: Shailesh Gandhi

Bombay HC on media trials: provides indicative list of what will amount to contempt of court

January 18, 2021
Why don’t you put the farm bills on hold, asks CJI Bobde; says court will have to take some action in face of Centre’s ineffectiveness

Farmers Protests: Why do you want us to tell you what powers you have? CJI Bobde asks AG

January 18, 2021
Defenders of Human Rights Must Defend the Rule of Law for All

What do Arnab Goswami’s WhatsApp Leaks Tell us About the State of our Democracy?

January 18, 2021

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox!

Follow Us

© 2020 TheLeaflet

SUBSCRIBE FOR UPDATES
×

Subscribe to The Leaflet

Enter your email address to subscribe to The Leaflet and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Why Leaflet
    • Leaflet Team
  • Constitutional Law
  • Human Rights
  • Culture
    • Book Review
    • Movie Review
    • Poetry
  • Humour
  • Issues
    • Analysis
    • Case update
    • Child’s Rights
    • Civil Law
    • Coronavirus and the Law
    • Criminal Justice System
    • Criminal Law
    • Dalit Rights
    • Editor’s Desk
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fundamental Rights
    • Gender Rights
    • Governance
    • Health Rights
    • History
    • International Law
    • Judiciary
    • Juvenile Justice
    • Know Your Rights
    • Labour Law
    • Law and Technology
    • Litigation
    • Mental Health
    • Policy
    • Politics
    • Right To Informtion
    • Sexual Offences
    • Social Justice
  • Leaflet Specials
    • Independence Day Special
    • Independence of judiciary
    • Right to Privacy
    • Special Issue: Emergency
    • The legacy of Ruth Ginsburg
    • Triple Talaq
    • Two years since Navtej Johar case
  • Videos
  • Historical Series
  • Contact us
    • Write For Us
    • Careers

© 2020 TheLeaflet