SC judge observes that eating chicken on Ganges is not a crime, flags ‘shrinking’ space for dissent: “Students don’t get bail for….” | Today’s news
Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted on Sunday that the space for dissent in India is steadily shrinking, with even students protesting for their rights facing arrest and difficulty securing bail. He also noted that in many cases, courts impose strict bail conditions that severely limit their personal freedom, Live Law reports.
Commenting on the matter, Justice Bhuyan said that people who raise awareness of environmental degradation “which is a reality” are often treated “like criminals”. He further noted that students who participate in protests on university campuses are arrested, denied bail for “30-40 days”, suspended from their institutions and then forced to go to court, a process that “takes time”.
“I will not comment on any current events in the country, I will refrain from doing so. But it will not be an exaggeration to say that the public space for expressing different views is shrinking in India. The right to express one’s views and the right to demonstrate peacefully are the basic liberties of citizens,” Bhuyan said.
He said: “Debate and dissent are the essence of democracy. Unfortunately, even formal activities are criminalized. People who come to express their concern about environmental degradation, which is a reality, are chased away as if they were criminals. Students protesting in universities are arrested and not given bail for 30-40 days. They are suspended and then have to go to court.”
“Citizens are watching, people are watching”
Bhuyan also cited the case of a group of youths who were denied bail after they organized an Iftar gathering on a boat in the middle of the Ganga, asking whether bail can be denied for an act that was not even a crime.
“I am sure that eating chicken biryani is not a crime. There is no law against eating chicken above the river Ganges; that is why they were arrested and had to stay in jail for three months. I ask myself, can people be arrested and denied bail for 3 months, I ask! Citizens are watching, people are watching,” Justice Bhuyan further said.
He further noted that courts are increasingly imposing bail conditions that effectively limit an individual’s right to dissent.
“An FIR is filed for posting a Facebook post commenting on the behavior of a minister who called a serving Indian Army officer the daughter of a terrorist, and he has to apply for anticipatory bail. Bail is granted, but what does the court do? (It asks them to store your passport (when) you’re not even a flight risk. (Then it says) don’t post anything on Facebook.”
Justice Bhuyan also cited the Gulfish judgment in the Delhi riots case and highlighted the strict conditions laid down by the Supreme Court while granting bail.
“Take the case of the young student activists who have been incarcerated for a long time. While the court granted them bail, they were ordered not only to surrender their passports but also not to attend or speak at any public gatherings, either physically or virtually. The imposition of such restrictive conditions seriously undermines their basic liberties and freedom. People would rightly ask if the court, by issuing such orders, is not complicit in sending such public activities?” he asked.
