Arresting thoughts

How’s an ‘anti-national slogan’, however defined, a crime? What about the right to free speech? 

Once again, that undefined-in-law non-offence, ‘anti-India’ slogan, is a reason for police action. A 14-year-old boy and his parents in Navi Mumbai were deemed threats because of the teen’s vocal support for Pakistan’s cricket team, voiced inside his house. Courts will – incredibly – now be asked to determine whether any Indian cheering a rival team can disrupt India’s harmony, or harm the nation. But even as things stand, the case unravels itself. Police acted swiftly upon a complaint by locals walking by the house who heard the boy cheering during Sunday’s India-Pakistan cricket match. They confronted the parents, who stood by their son. Over to cops, who obliged by arresting the parents and sending the teen to a remand home. No less egregious was the fact that administration found enough cause to raze the scrap dealer’s business place within two days, on the fig leaf of the property being “unauthorised”.

First, the arrests. Police promptly filed an FIR under BNS Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups, doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and 197 (imputations/assertions prejudicial to national integration). These are serious allegations that invite up to three years in jail. Surely police should be trained enough to know these clauses don’t apply, by simple common sense. But clearly, since they acted basis locals reportedly saying there were “vulgar” slogans, misapplication of the law wasn’t an issue for cops.

But more important is the issue of the constitutional guarantee for freedom of speech. Are we to believe that cheering Pakistan weakens the Indian state, and therefore ‘reasonable restrictions’ apply? If the issue weren’t so serious, the question would be deemed absurd. India’s govts, politicians, govt officers and cops must ask themselves what they say about this country when they arrest people who have broken no law. Courts must make it clear that ‘anti-national slogans’ don’t constitute a crime.

Second, the razing of a place of trade is flagrant violation of the Supreme Court’s detailed guidelines issued in Nov 2024 to be followed before tearing down alleged unauthorised construction. Directions included a 15-day prior notice to the owner, and a step-by-step process including a date to hear the owner. But for Sindhudurg district’s Malvan municipal council, this was unnecessary. Letters from cops and the local MLA were reason enough. SC had said officials flouting its directive would be prosecuted and officers would have to restore demolished structures at personal cost. Courts should remember this too.