Where is that freedom they are talking about?
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: September 13, 2012 -
Though the two may seem to be different issues, the arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi on alleged charge of sedition on Saturday last and the Tuesday's Supreme Court judgment that judges could rule to temporarily ban media coverage on court cases on a case-by-case basis, has once again brought to the fore the increasing conflict between Indian authorities and advocates of free speech and expression of in the country of late
Even though the court has granted bail to Aseem on Wednesday, but the manner in which a Mumbai Court issued the warrant for his detection and effected the arrest of cartoonist and free speech activist by the police sparked an outrage among the people who termed it as a 'egregious crackdown' on freedom of speech and expression, of which the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens
Even the political class, cutting cross party lines, has been united in condemning the sedition charge slapped on Aseem
But the Court found Aseem's 'Cartoons Against Corruption' which satirized government misdeeds by depicting Parliament as a bathroom and replacing the three-lion National emblem with three wolves hungry for graft, as 'offensive' to National honour
Interestingly, it did not see or hear the meaning behind the cartoon that speaks of the menace of deep-rooted corruption in Indian politics where even cash was exchanged in Parliament and the corrupt politicians remained scot-free
So much for National honour!!
On the other hand, the Supreme court judgment has come in the wake of the appeal made by The Sahara Group, an Indian conglomerate, which approached the apex court for directives on media reporting after it alleged that documents from a court case it was involved in with Indian market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) were leaked to the media
Though the Supreme Court ruled that it was unable to frame such broad guidelines, nonetheless, it pointed out that 'what constitutes an offending publication would depend on the decision of the court on case-to-case basis' and there may be occasions when media reporting on court proceedings interferes with an individual or group's right to a fair trial
Passing the judgment, the apex observed that if a party felt that media reporting was interfering with a fair trial, they could then approach a high court or the Supreme Court to seek a ban on such coverage for a short duration
The relevant court could then look at the merits of the case and pass a specific order
It is interesting to note that in passing the judgment, the apex court has arrived at only a compromise wherein even if there would not be an all-encompassing guideline, the courts can still decide on a case-to-case basis depending on the circumstances and the nature of the cases
Such ambiguous ruling from the highest court has only confirmed the fear of media representatives over restrictions on the working of media in a supposedly free and independent country
The Supreme Court ruling is, in fact, against democratic principles of freedom of free enshrined in the Constitution
Such ambiguous ruling could also be used to restrain media coverage in the name of protection of the right of privacy
In another word, the Supreme Court ruling is nothing but gagging media on the pretext of ensuring fair trial.
* Comments posted by users in this discussion thread and other parts of this site are opinions of the individuals posting them (whose user ID is displayed alongside) and not the views of e-pao.net. We strongly recommend that users exercise responsibility, sensitivity and caution over language while writing your opinions which will be seen and read by other users. Please read a complete Guideline on using comments on this website.