‘Dissent’ is the basic feature of democracy. I do agree that no other cognition, except democracy, can vouch for the calibre of diversity and dissent. Suppression of dissent is directly or indirectly an assault on the character of tolerance, diversity and plural values. Tolerating the voices we dislike is a sign of mature and strong democracy. A distinguishing feature of any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent which cannot be trampled by any executive action. But can the dissent be a ‘continuous process’ as against legislation which has a constitutional presumption, and when the matter is sub judice before the court? Post the enactment of the Citizen Amendment Act, we have been witnessing the expression of ‘public/political dissent’ at various places including in university campuses.
People are being mobilised to express dissent against CAA. In a democratic society, a citizen has a right to dissent without fear of victimisation, as long as such a dissent does not lead to violation of any law. Providing a platform to dissent is a sign of respect toward diversity and plural identities. In late August 2018, five Indian Civil rights activists were arrested under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), for activities connected to a Dalit rally, called Bhima Koregaon in Maharashtra, which in fact, led to clashes between Hindu nationalists and the Dalit crowd. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said context, had observed that dissent is the safety valve of democracy. If dissent is not allowed, then the pressure cooker may burst. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a series of judgments, has recognised dissent as a symbol of a vibrant democracy and held that a country becomes a jail if citizens are made to move under the ‘scrutinising gaze’ of the police. The Supreme Court also held that the free flow of opinions and ideas are essential to sustain the collective life of the citizenry.
A sect of people may express dissent against governmental action or legislation. In the case of governmental action, citizens may resort to public/political dissent. For instance, Narmadha Bachao Andolan rendered service to the country, by creating high-level awareness about environmental and rehabilitation and relief aspects of various projects on the river Narmadha and the need for resettlement of the affected parties. In such cases, since there would not be any scope for expressing dissent before any forum, a public/political dissent would be the approach. In cases where enactments are made, the forum for dissent would be the legislature.
In a democratic society, people vote for their representatives and the majority, the latter speaks on behalf of the majority. After due deliberations, the legislation is passed and the presumption is that it is constitutionally valid. The legislature is a platform of dissent. The dissent is recorded. If the constitutional validity of an enactment is to be challenged, the forum would be the apex court. The ultimate choice against alleged arbitrary action of the government is the judiciary. The judiciary is recognised as the custodian of the constitution. It plays an essential role in maintaining peace and imparting justice, and also for the enjoyment of fundamental rights. It is an important pillar for the establishment of good governance. Political dissent refers to any expression designed to convey dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of the government. Such expression may take forms from vocal disagreements to civil disobedience to the use of violence.
In my opinion, such a continuous process of expressing dissent by mobilising people would disturb the basic peaceful fabric of society. It may quickly descend into civil disobedience with little warning. It would instil unlawful ideas and may lead to disturbances. Since the public dissent is already expressed in one form or the other, further mobilisation is unwarranted. The constitutional validity of CAA is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The cases are posted for hearing on 22nd January 2020 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, continuous public dissent as against legislations is not good for society. The constitution envisages checks and balances inter-se between the three pillars of the democracy i.e., executive, legislator and judiciary. Therefore, there should be a restraint until the matter is adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Chittarvu Raghu, Advocate, High Court’s of A.P. & T.S. chittarvu_raghu@yahoo.com.