Opinion Express View on show cause notice to CPM MP: Let them debate

On May 1, the Government of India told the Supreme Court that it’s “re-examination” of the Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code — the sedition law — is at a “substantially advanced stage”. The colonial era law itself, as well its alleged misuse by governments across the political spectrum, has been under question for some years now and the Centre’s re-examination is a welcome part of and a response to these concerns, now before the Court. Against this backdrop, the summoning of CPM MP John Brittas by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar for “seditious” political views expressed in a newspaper article strikes a discordant note.

On February 20, Brittas wrote an article in this newspaper titled, ‘The perils of propaganda’. In it, he took exception to statements made by Home Minister Amit Shah while addressing a rally in Mangaluru, Karnataka. “There is Kerala in your neighbourhood. I do not wish to speak more. Only the BJP under the leadership of Modi can protect Karnataka,” Shah had said. Kerala is ruled by the CPM and has been invoked as a part of political rhetoric on the campaign trail by senior BJP leaders. Brittas’s article, too, must be seen in that vein — a politician’s response to statements by his rivals. Kerala BJP leader P Sudheer objected to the article, complaining that it is “highly divisive and polarising” and “seditious”. The V-P’s summons to Brittas and the Rajya Sabha’s issuing of a show cause notice to him came after Sudheer’s complaint. However, the Secretariat’s jurisdiction in the matter is far from clear.

Advertisement

That the V-P as ex-officio Chairman of the Upper House in his wisdom chose to have a discussion with an MP is unexceptionable. However, Dhankhar and the Secretariat must avoid the impression that they are acting to curb the free speech of an MP. Even if Brittas were not a legislator, he has the right to speak and write against the government and its leaders — as every citizen does. As far back as 1962, the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath vs Union of India affirmed that “comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government” do not constitute “seditious” speech. The office of the Chairman of the House and the Secretariat must enable debate and discussion — and protect the right of peoples’ representatives to put their views across. That role is ill-served by seemingly making an issue of political rhetoric by an opposition leader.