In the recent years numerous cases have come up proving the involvement of police personnel in implicating Muslim youths in terror cases. The recent acquittals, where in some cases not even a ‘mole of evidence’ was found against the accused, corroborate to the plotting by the Indian police. There has also been a surge in sedition cases being slapped against those who just spoke to defend their rights granted in the Constitution; this phenomenon undoubtedly questions the democratic principles of the country. In order to raise the issue further, the second Professor Iqbal Ansari Memorial Lecture on ‘Sedition, Anti-Terror Laws and Democracy’ was organised at the Indian Law Institute in the Capital on October 13.
Ajit Sahi, a renowned journalist, in his presidential speech, spoke about the pitiable state of Indian democracy. While praising the efforts of the Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association (JTSA) which recently came up with its report ‘Framed, Damned and Acquitted,’ he said, “It is a pity that a country that claims to be the biggest democracy is involved in such activities (illegal picking up of youths)… We have won the fight against TADA and POTA and we are near to win UAPA,” he added.
Dr. V. Suresh, National General Secretary, PUCL, raised many important issues and pointed to the loopholes and lacunae in the system. Regarding the win against the POTA, he highlighted how even more draconian provisions got incorporated in UAPA, which were not even there in POTA. “While POTA could not be registered by a police officer below the rank of SP, whose approval was required, UAPA did not have this clause. In the same manner, POTA required sanction at the time of filing of charge sheet, which was also dropped in UAPA,” he said. In order to overcome the issue of false implications the guilty officers should be booked, he added.
Advocate Mayur Suresh, Researcher from the University of London, questioned the sedition laws in the country. “The test of sedition that the government seeks is, ‘have you expressed enough love for the nation? If not, then you are seditious.’ But the question is, how will love for [the] nation be judged?” he added.
In the end a law student during the question and answer session asked for criminalisation of malicious prosecution so as to end the preposterous practice.