Rahul Gandhi case: An example of silencing dissent in a country with freedom of speech

The constitutional provision of freedom of speech and liberty are fundamental and inalienable foundations of democracy. The displeasure shown by the Supreme Court provides an example of the pathetic state of the law

Minister of Law and Justice Department Mr. Shri. Kiran Rijiju doesn't go away. As a citizen and practicing advocate, I would prefer to accept his claim. I was also pleased to hear him reiterate this claim at a TV conference.

In the meantime, he made a scathing statement which I am transcribing here verbatim.

"I think this is the most important topic for me, for the country. There is a systematic attempt to weaken the judiciary of India. That is why they are often alleging that the government wants to take over the Indian judiciary. In a way this is a conspiracy. Anti-Indian elements inside and outside India also use similar language. We will not allow this piecemeal gang to destroy India's credibility and sovereignty.''

"Recently a seminar was held in Delhi. Some retired judges of the Supreme Court, some senior legislators and some eminent personalities were present in this seminar. 'Accountability in the appointment of judges' was the topic of discussion, but how the government is taking the judiciary into its own hands, the whole day was debated. Some retired judges, three or four, some of them activists, are becoming part of the anti-India gang, they are trying to create a situation where the Indian judiciary plays the role of the opposition.

"Action will be taken, action is being taken as per the law, but if I say that I will take action, the agencies will take action as per the provision of the law. No one can escape it. People who are doing anti-national activities will have to pay the price. ''

This was an ambiguous statement. Only one thing was noticed here and that such a statement has come from none other than the law minister of the country. If the government assumes that there is a Tukde Tukde gang or any person who is a member of an anti-India gang, it is hereby warned that action will be taken against anyone who speaks against it or plays the role of opposition. We know who the 'agencies' are. We know what kind of measures they will take. We also know the price one has to pay.

This statement of the Law and Justice Minister and its impact on freedom of speech was condemned by many people. In my opinion, this was an attempt to show the weak power of the ruler and that democracy is in danger, this was enough proof.

State of Judiciary

Consider another part of the country i.e. Judiciary. The Supreme Court occupies the highest position in the judiciary. The Supreme Court of India is sometimes referred to as the most powerful court in the world. On March 21, 2023, a three-judge bench delivered its judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antill vs. CBI. Noting its earlier judgment in this case dated July, 2022 on the issue of bail, the court said,

“The counsel presented before us a bunch of orders passed in violation of the CBI judgment in Satender Kumar Antill v. It was his attempt to show a sample of what anomalies are going on at the lower levels even after ten months have passed.

There is one thing that cannot be described and in our view it is the responsibility of the High Courts to ensure that the lower courts follow the law of the land. Even if such orders are passed by some Magistrates, judicial intervention is required to withdraw them.

"Another point that needs to be highlighted is that it is the duty of not only the court but also the public prosecutors to present a genuine legal argument before the court."

Constitutional provision of freedom of speech and liberty are fundamental and inalienable foundations of democracy. The displeasure shown by the Supreme Court provides an example of the pathetic state of the law. The law is torn between overburdened investigative agencies and a lenient judiciary.

Vigorous political debate is the essence of democracy

March 23, 2023 Rahul Gandhi has been sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty in a defamation case by a magistrate court.

The lawyers fighting the case on behalf of Rahul Gandhi found this judgment flawed. He termed the judgment erroneous on several issues including lapse in compliance with the procedure. He also termed the two-year jail term too harsh. Vigorous political debate is the essence of democracy. If we study the case deeply, it seems that the system is being used to silence the voice of the democratic opposition in the country.