So Where Does This Case Stand?
Indian constitution grants everyone the freedom of right to speech and expression under Article 19, but our founding fathers were well aware of the rich cultural and religious diversity of India, hence, along with Article 19, a “reasonable restriction concept” was added as a provision. Article 19 places reasonable restrictions to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality and contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence. But how just is HC’s decision ordering Richa Bharti to contribute five Qurans?
While granting bail to the accused Richa Sharma, the court directed Sharma, who is a B.Com student, to donate one copy of Quran to the Anjuman Islamia Committee and four copies of Muslim religious book to libraries of various school and colleges.
Now the question is, is this forceful tolerance? Is this viable?
According to Wikipedia, tolerance is “the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with.”
Richa Bharti’s arrest or the arrest of an 18-year-old in U.P., or four people arrested for a TicTok post, etc. all seem to be acts of intolerance which come under the scanner due to the same ‘reasonable restriction’.
If we go by this judgment, are we inching towards an era where future judgements on the same lines will be seen? Will the court ask people to distribute Bhagwad Gitas, or even ask them to attend namaz or pooja? Is this acceptable in our multicultural nation where “we accept people the way they are”?
Earlier in 2017, same Ranchi high court asked a person to do community service by serving the “traffic management” as a condition of bail, and this judgment was applaudable and logical and healthy for India as a whole.