Criminal, anti-terror laws should not be misused to quell dissent: Justice Chandrachud

Tribune News Service
New Delhi, July 13

As many activists charged under anti-terror laws languish in jail, Supreme Court judge DY Chandrachud has said that criminal laws, including the anti-terror law, should not be misused to muzzle dissent.

“The criminal law, including anti-terror legislation should not be misused for quelling dissent or for the harassment of citizens,” Justice Chandrachud said on Monday. He was speaking on the ‘Role of the Supreme Court in protecting fundamental rights in challenging times’ at a conference hosted by the American Bar Association with the Society of Indian Law Firms and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

Citing his own judgement in Arnab Goswami’s case, Justice Chandrachud said: “Our courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defence against the deprivation of the liberty of citizens. Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one too many. We must always be mindful of the deeper systemic implications of our decisions”.

Justice Chandrachud’s remarks come days after 84-year-old ailing activist Stan Swamy—arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in the Elgar Parishad case—died at a Mumbai hospital waiting for disposal of his bail plea.

While granting bail to student activists Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita and Asif Iqbal Tanha booked under the UAPA in the 2020 Delhi riots case—the Delhi High Court had last month said that right to protest is a fundamental right that can’t be termed as a terrorist act.

Akhil Gogoi — an activist in Assam arrested under the UAPA in connection with protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act—was recently exonerated after spending 17 months in jail.

Noting that the Supreme Court plays the role of a “counter-majoritarian institution”, Justice Chandrachud said it’s the duty of the court to protect the rights of socioeconomic minorities.

• Right to protest fundamental right, cannot be termed as ‘terrorist act’: Delhi HC
• UAPA’s constitutionality open to debate

While some have termed these interventions of the Indian Supreme Court as “judicial activism” or “judicial overreach”, the Court plays the role of a counter-majoritarian institution and it is its duty to protect the rights of socio-economic minorities. As the guardian of the Constitution, it has to put a break where executive or legislative actions infringe fundamental human rights.

“The Supreme Court has to act in furtherance of its role as sentinel on the qui vive (watchful guardian) and respond to the call of Constitutional conscience and it is this role that prompts it to address the challenges of the 21st century, ranging from the pandemic to the rise of intolerance, features which we find across the world,” he said.

He, however, said while being acutely aware of this responsibility, judges were careful about maintaining separation of powers.