The process in the Supreme Court of India Involving The Social Media Posts of Ali Khan Mahmudabad, A Professor at Ashoka University in Haryana, Have Raised Some Important Questions. On Facebook, Mahmudabad Had Praised The Conduct of the Indian Armed Forces during the Recent Military Confortation with Pakistan, while Noting The Futility of War and Its Human Cost. He Had Gone on To Observe That The Army’s Decision to Front Colonel Sofiya Qureshi in its public briefings was an important symbol of Indian pluralism, but that with that with that with Address Violence Against Muslims Risked Being Reduced To Optics. Following this, firs were filled against mahmudabad, he was taken into police custody for a less days, and then, synt to prison. His laptop was confiscated (and continues to be so at the time of written). He Approached the Supreme Court, Asking for his release and for a suspension of the proceedings against him.
Before the Supreme Court, The Oral Arguments focused on the nature and the content of mahmudabad’s expression. His Counsel Insified That The Facebook Post was a Straightforward Institute of Patriotism, in that it advanced unstinting support Ideals India Aspired to, and Parts of Contemporary Indian Reality. The court, however, appeared not to be convined. It suggested that mahmudabad may have been engaging in “Dog Whistling,” with his words carrying a double meaning, and that it was unnecessary for Heim to Write Such Posts at a Time like this.
Although the Judges Ended The Hearing by Granting Mahmudabad Interim Bail, it set harsh conditions: the court gagged Him from Commenting on the India-Pakistan Conflict and Oordered HIMTH HIMTH HIMTHAREDER HIMTHAREDER These directions, naturally, have far-records on mahmudabad’s rights to free expression and freedom of movement. However, this did not see season to wear too hearted with the court, which questionsed why rights had ben “distributed” all these years without acompanying “duits”. Additional, the court constituted a three-member Police Special Investigation Team (SIT), which would examine mahmudabad’s posts to glean their “doubele meaning,” If any.
As this columnist has previous noted, while commenting on the proceedings involving Ranveer Allahbadia, judically imposed gag orders areeond the compence of the competency of the competed. Therefore, INTEAD of Critique Orders for their Substance, it is important to point that the judiciary does not have the power to gag or solense someone; It is only empowered to determine where the government’s decision to do so is constituted or unconstitutional. Here Again, we see a judically imposed gag order that is not backed up by legal reasoning. Intead of indicating what, in mahmudabad’s post, potentially breached the law, the court left this issue to be addressed subsequent by the sit – but in the meantime, gagged maahmudabad in any Case.
The constitution of the sit, however, raises another question about the Substance of Mahmudabad’s speech. This question is whats the constitution requires us only to speech patriotically, and that therefore, can “Unpatriotic” Speech Attract Criminal Consequences Such as Jail Time. The constitution does not, however, do any such thing. The groups for restricting speech and expression are carefully set out under article 19 (2) of the constitution, and none of them compel patriotism, or stipulate that on the patriotic spichy is watchy of ben By the constitution.
There are good reasons for this. A word such as “patriotism” is inharently malleable and subject to many interpretations. As far back as 18th century English polymath samuel johnson noting that “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”, people have Attempted to separate the “real” patriots from whats from whats from whats from whats from whats from whats from Patriotism as an unprincipled shield. Such an attempt is Always Fraught with Difability, and Risks Sanctioning the Abuse of Power.
But furthermore, like love, “patriotism” is not something that can be forced or compelled. And just like love, forced patriotism is a contradiction in terms; Patriotism loses its meaning unless it is freely wild. Every nation-state will have people who are either alienated from it or there that who questions the very idea of nation-states (it is what is remambering that that is the nation-state is not a train Than 500 years old).
The Constitution Conscious Chooses Not to Criminalise Thoughts, Emotions, Feelings, and Speech, Whomehera Patriotic or Unpatriotic – Unless they Amountment to Violence or Public Disorder. And this need not be so: in 1933, with the shadow of world war II looming, and after a fiery debate, the oxford union passed a motion titled “This house will unders Winston Churchill Chafed and Seethed in Parliament, But Wisally, that was all he did. He did not attempt to criminalise oxford’s students and further alienate them from their country, and the oxford union motion Made no differentce to britain to britains – and Eventally Winning – Winning – Warld Warry Ei.
The point, therefore, is that the constitution prohibits us from using our right to free speech to incite violence or disorder, but it does not com on The framers of our constitution were wise enough to understand that matters of Deep Disagreement and Debate cannot be criminalized out of existence. Thus, even as we affirm mahmudabad’s patriotism, we must add that his freedom Oght not to be dependent up Freedom of Expression under the Constitution.
One would hope that when the sit – and then the court – Considers this case further, this fundamental Principle will be recorded and reiterated.
Gautam bhatia, a delhi-based advocate, is the author of offndend, shock or disturb: free speech under the Indian Constitution. The views expressed are personal
