Our freedoms, your Lordships

With all due respect to the Supreme Court, it is now fair to say that unwittingly some of its orders are giving aid and succour to all those tendencies that are out to subvert liberal values in this country. For the second time in less than a year, the Supreme Court has passed an order that should send a shiver down the spines of all those who care about freedom and the possibility of open-minded scholarship. In an order passed in the context of a Special Leave Petition 8931, the Supreme Court has suggested that “after hearing the learned counsel for parties at some length we feel that if Paras 2,5,7 and 8, of the Schedule are omitted, interest of justice would be best served.” The court clarifies that this suggestion shall “not in any way affect the merits of the issue involved,” which shall be examined after the response of “respondent no 4” is received.

The respondent in this case is James Laine; the paragraphs in question are from his book on Shivaji published by Oxford University Press, subject to a ban in Maharashtra. This ban was overturned relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court itself. And now two honourable justices feel that the cause of justice would be best served if Laine withdraws certain paragraphs. With all due respect, (and paraphrasing Montesquieu) the potential tyranny inherent in this order is made all the more insidious by it being carried out in the name of justice, and in the language of reasonable compromise. Why?

The idea that works of art and scholarship will now have to answer to protocols set by a myriad of groups, including the judiciary, is deeply worrying. Last year, in a worrying judgment, the court upheld the ban on a novel nominated for awards, Dharamkaarana, by P.V. Narayanna. In that case too, the high court had suggested that some passages be removed. In an extraordinary act of artistic integrity, the author refused and the ban was upheld. It is a cliché that freedom of expression is not absolute. But it is equally true that freedom of expression is not worth much if it does not let art, or works of scholarship, or “the thought we hate” that might offend someone, pass muster. I know of publishers who will not touch books on Shivaji because of fear of violence, and a sense that the courts will not protect them.

... contd.

Ads By Google

Message*	Maximum characters allowed

Name*		Email ID*
Subject*		Country*

TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

I agree to the terms of use.

Mail this page