Words can harm; Use them wisely

"We are what our thoughts have made us; so, take care about what you think; Words are secondary; Thoughts live; they travel far": Swami Vivekanand. In a politicised society like ours neither thoughts nor words are taken care of. The spontaneity of venomous speeches that abound is appalling to say the least.

Dealing with the bail petition of Sharjeel Imam, a Delhi Court on Friday denied bail to the Jawaharlal Nehru University student who had been booked for sedition during the anti-CAA/NRC protests in the capital city. Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agarwal of Saket Courts said that the speech delivered by Imam at Jamia Milia University on December 13, 2019 was clearly on communal/divisive lines and could affect peace and harmony in the society.

"A cursory and plain reading of the speech dated December 13, 2019 reveals that same is clearly on communal/divisive lines. In my view, the tone and tenor of the incendiary speech tend to have a debilitating effect upon public tranquillity, peace and harmony of the society," the court said. The case is still on and no conclusive remark has been made by the judge. Agreed. But, the clarity to his approach is remarkable. The judge was equally right in observing that the arguments of the prosecution were sketchy and scanty. The court was given no evidence corroborating the version of prosecution. The essential link between the speech of the accused and the subsequent acts of co-accused was conspicuously missing in the case.

Granting or denial of bail is another matter. It is not just in Imam case, there are several such cases wherein a copy/paste method is followed and investigations are not sincerely done. If the said accused is so dangerous to the society, why is there a lack of seriousness in investigation? Do the police think that its job is over once they book someone and send him to jail for some time? The theory as propounded by investigating agency leaves gaping holes which leads to an incomplete picture. Or, do the police think that it is legally permissible to build the edifice of prosecution version upon the foundation of imagination or upon inadmissible confession before a police officer?

Once the legally impermissible foundation of imaginative thinking and disclosure statement of accused/co-accused is removed, the prosecution version on this count appears to be crumbling like a house of cards. The relevant sections may be applicable but the argument should be substantive. Is not it so? The judge was equally particular in this case in pointing out the lacunae in the arguments.

Hate peddlers also should remember that the very same Constitution that gives them liberty and freedom of speech also places a reasonable restriction upon exercise of the said right inter alia on the grounds of public order and incitement to offence. That apart, Article 51A(e) of the Constitution also casts a fundamental duty upon citizens of this country to promote harmony and spread common brotherhood amongst all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.