Home » india news » SC ruling in Writ Petition (Criminal) 118 of 2007 raises more problems for democracy than it solves
 

SC ruling in Writ Petition (Criminal) 118 of 2007 raises more problems for democracy than it solves

Saurav Datta | Updated on: 10 February 2017, 1:48 IST

Democracy is one of the prime factors that India, as a country, ought to uphold. It gives a wholesome sense to the idea of freedom in the country. However, some rulings by the apex court of the country has made citizens question the very idea of democracy.

The Supreme Court (SC) could have provided a fillip to the idea of freedom, but, the ruling delivered in Writ Petition (Criminal) 118 of 2007, raises troubling questions that 'democracy' cannot entirely permit.

While on one hand, Writ Petition (Criminal) 118 of 2007 upholds the right to peaceful protest, on the other it also grants sweeping powers to the police and other law-enforcement agencies and authorities.

Thus, this ruling, inasmuch as it brings a welcome relief to those waging peaceful demonstrations, it is yet another symbol of inherent contradictions in judicial decisions.

Since the 1990s, the displaced people of Jammu & Kashmir have been agitating for their rights. The right to shelter and a compensation of Rs. 10 lac to those who were injured in the throes of "militancy".

And Anita Thakur (the lead petitioner in the case), the General Secretary of the Jammu & Kashmir Panthers Party, led a peaceful delegation to the Relief Commissioner, demanding that the arrears of the compensation amount be provided to those forced to migrate.

The matter in hand

On 12 July 2006, the Relief Commissioner stated before the Supreme Court that there was nothing amiss and the relief and monetary compensation was being provided.

But, those who were living in utter misery and abject poverty didn't believe a word of it. They severely objected to the report.

So, on 31 July 2007, they started out from the Talwara camp (in Katra district of Kashmir) to Delhi.

En route, the police swooped down on them with batons and tear gas shells. Some of them were even detained in illegal custody.

It is paradoxical how the court dealt with the matter when approached by the aggrieved protesters.

In paragraphs 8, 11, 12 of the ruling, while coming down heavily upon police high-handedness, the top court also cracked the whip on the freedom of assembly, which is a constitutionally-guaranteed Fundamental Right.

For instance, the court forbids the use of "offensive language" while holding demonstrations and protest marches, however, they have not defined the scope and the ambit of the term.

If one looks at the Delhi High Court's Justice Pratibha Rani's ruling in the JNU case, and the outrage against it, one could well discern how vague the ruling is.

The right to assembly has gone for a toss.

The court's bemoaning of the "unfortunate trend of public agitations being on the rise", is unfortunate. How else would a democracy function sans the freedom and right to voice dissent and protest?

In fact, this correspondent had writtenearlier how the freedom of assembly is trampled upon by the police. The vague words and terms of the apex court only exacerbate the problem.

The only redeeming aspect of SC's ruling is the invoking of international covenants to direct that cops must undergo special training so that they don't use excessive force while "trying to maintain law and order" while controlling public demonstrations.

However, the apex court's ruling, mired as it is in a sea of vague terms, could possibly well create more problems for democratic rights than it could solve.

Also read: People should be treated with love and affection: Supreme Court on Kashmir unrest

Also read: Will the Supreme Court allow Catholics to follow their own laws?

Also read: Why I am happy that Supreme Court trashed the WhatsApp-ban petition

First published: 17 August 2016, 2:20 IST
 
Saurav Datta @SauravDatta29

Saurav Datta works in the fields of media law and criminal justice reform in Mumbai and Delhi.