Back
Must Protect Fundamental Rights And Quash Criminal Cases Targeting Dissenters Says Justice Oka
In a profound reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role as the sentinel of , former judge Justice Abhay Oka has issued a robust call to action for . Speaking at the inaugural Memorial Lecture Series in Mumbai, Justice Oka emphasized that the primary responsibility of the constitutional judiciary is to safeguard the to . He contended that courts must adopt a proactive stance in quashing criminal proceedings that are initiated solely to silence dissent, asserting that it is not the function of the judiciary to lecture citizens on their moral or social conduct.
The lecture, held at the KC College auditorium, centered on the theme
"
and
: Followed or Forgotten."
Justice Oka’s address highlighted the growing concern regarding the erosion of democratic values in the face of increasing intolerance, particularly toward viewpoints that dissent from the status quo or challenge the majority sentiment.
The Judicial Mandate: Protection Over Regulation
Justice Oka’s address served as a sharp critique of the tendency of some courts to overstep their mandate by attempting to regulate the content of speech rather than protecting the underlying right. He underscored that a citizen’s right to express displeasure or dissent through is essential to the health of a democracy.
"
within the constitutional means are a
of citizens and if we do not allow people to express displeasure by making
, there won't be democracy,"
Justice Oka stated. He further clarified that when cases of this nature reach a court of law, the inquiry should be strictly limited to whether a criminal offence has been disclosed.
He noted,
"The court may not like what the petitioners have said or expressed but still it is the duty of the court to protect the
. It is not the function of the court to preach or teach the petitioner what s/he should say and what s/he should not have said. That's not the function of the court at all."
The Perils of Intolerance and Misuse of Law
A significant portion of the lecture focused on the casual application of criminal provisions, specifically Section 153A and , against individuals whose views are merely unpalatable to others. Justice Oka remarked that these provisions are frequently weaponized by law enforcement agencies against stand-up comedians, journalists, and activists, not because a crime has been committed, but because their expressions provoke discomfort among those in positions of power.
The former judge expressed deep concern over a systemic failure where both the executive branch and certain judicial forums appear to have forgotten that the proper response to an unpopular viewpoint is counter-argument, not criminalization.
"Those who are in power do not tolerate criticism... We have forgotten that if you do not like a particular viewpoint, instead of attacking the person who expresses it, we must try to convince him by presenting our own point of view,"
he argued.
The Constitutional Obligation of the State
Drawing a direct link between constitutional duties and state action, Justice Oka pointed out that —which delineates the fundamental duties of citizens—is equally binding on the State and its instrumentalities. He criticized the modern tendency of government agencies to view dissent as a threat to be managed rather than a facet of a vibrant democracy.
"When the State infringes the fundamental rights of citizens' right to free speech and express, it is basically violating its
to uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens and to respect the 'ideals' of the
,"
the judge observed. He lamented that in the current climate, the secular and democratic ideals enshrined in the
are frequently overlooked, leading to an environment where dissenters are treated as adversaries of the state.
Drawing Lines: The Role of the
Referring to a recent example mentioned by his colleague, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Oka highlighted an instance where a
refused to allow a
regarding international events, instead questioning the protestors' focus. Justice Oka dismissed this logic entirely:
"Now court is not concerned with this aspect. Somebody wants to have
without committing any offence. Police have to permit it. The protest may on any ground so long as it is a lawful protest within the constitutional framework."
The implication of this judicial philosophy is significant for legal practitioners. It suggests that courts must move away from a role of "moral arbiter" and return to that of a "rights protector." For the legal fraternity, this serves as a reminder to push for the rigorous application of Supreme Court-mandated tests when defending clients against charges meant to stifle speech.
Impact on the Legal Community and the Future of Dissent
The event, organized by , also saw the felicitation of with the “Juridical Excellence Award ,” underscoring the legal community's commitment to excellence and high ethical standards.
Justice Oka’s concluding remarks served as a stern warning and an appeal. He stated that if —the final guardians of rights—do not fulfill their bounden duty to protect freedom of speech, no other institution remains to safeguard the democracy. As intolerance continues to rise, the legal community is reminded that the protection of the Constitution rests on the judiciary's willingness to stand firm against and to interpret the law in a manner that favors liberty over restriction.
By emphasizing that the function of the court is not to judge the content of speech, but to ensure that the right to speech remains unhindered, Justice Oka has set a benchmark for the role of the judiciary in contemporary times. His words echo as a reminder that the constitutional framework is not a stagnant document but a living entity that requires constant vigilance to ensure it remains a shield for the citizen rather than a sword for the state.
