“If we live in a democracy, can someone be jailed for merely criticising a government policy?” asked 43-year-old Raju Khanna who is among 22 traders in Kanpur who were booked by the police on Thursday for putting up hoardings comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The hoardings say that just like Kim has decided to destroy the world, Modi has decided to destroy business.
Khanna said that the message on the hoardings referred to the shortage of currency notes after Modi’s decision in November to demonetise 86% of the currency in circulation. In Kanpur, Khanna said, banks were refusing to accept coins from businessmen, hampering their day-to-day operations.
The First Information Report in the case charges the men with “wantonly giving provocation to someone intending or knowing that it is likely to cause riots” and “making a statement conducting public mischief”. The case was registered at Kanpur’s Govind Nagar Police Station after the hoardings were spotted on Wednesday, a day before the Bharatiya Janata Party was to hold a meeting in the city. The posters bore the image Khanna, the leader of a small-scale trader’s group, as well as names of many other traders.
This incident has revived the focus on the right to free speech and the repercussions of criticising government policy. Senior lawyers and civil right activists have claimed that the incident reflects “contempt of law” by the people who have a “constitutional duty to protect the rule of law”.
Khanna, who owns a confectionery and general store, explained that he bore no enmity towards any political party or official. “I was only raising voices against the injustice caused to thousands of small-scale traders in the city,” he said. “I came to know about the case through news reports on Friday and now my family is getting calls from the police stations at least four times a day. My wife and children are scared beyond imagination.”
Neither the police nor Khanna could give a count of how many such posters were put up in the city.
The charges
The traders have been booked under Section 153 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code. The first is a cognisable offence and punishable with a jail term of six months even if the act had not caused a riot. A cognisable offence is one in which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest without a warrant and to start an investigation even without the permission of a court.
With regard to Section 505, there is greater variability in terms of cognisance and punishment, depending much on the nature of the statement in question. The punishment for causing public mischief, for instance, could extend up to three-and-a-half years of imprisonment.
However, while people booked under Section 153 may apply for bail, Section 505 in any case (cognisable or non-cognisable) is non-bailable.
R B Singh, the Station House Officer of Govind Nagar, said that the police took suo moto cognisance of the matter after one person was putting up a poster and later arrested. However, until Sunday evening, none of the 22 traders had been arrested.
“The act is clearly a criminal offence under IPC Sections 153 and 505,” said Singh. “There is no doubt in that,” he said.
However, senior lawyers and civil right activists disagreed with this assessment.
According to senior lawyer V Suresh, the National General Secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, the case indicates an overreach on part of the police aimed at supressing criticism of the Prime Minister and the policies implemented by his government. The case will send a message to the authorities in other states to curb dissent, he said.
“It is abuse of criminal law and complete violation of the constitutional duty to protect the rule of law,” he said.
‘Completely illegal’
Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan also said that the police action was “completely illegal”. It shows utter contempt of law on part of the police in Uttar Pradesh, which is ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party.
“The court should take notice of this and order action to be taken against police officials involved in this case,” he said.
Both lawyers said that the incident in question does not even qualify as a legimitate case of defamation, let alone criminal charges like the one actually invoked.