I started this blog with the idea of presenting my thoughts no matter how radical, unconventional, stupid or unreasonable they are. After the Supreme Court's judgement today on blogger Ajith vs Shiv Sena, I am not too sure on my blog's future or its utility.
I am scared today, like the day after 26/11. When I walked back to office the next day morning, I had a feeling that someone might just walk out of nowhere and riddle my body with bullets. Today, I do not know when I might just offend public sentiments and HAVE to appear in the court for criminal proceedings.
Ajith had only started a community in Orkut on Shiv Sena where people posted their views on the political party. Going by its track record, it was not surprising then that some of the comments were strong and harsh. Rubbed the wrong way, its youth wing secretary lodged a criminal case against the 19-year old. So far, its a day-to-day affair. The shock was to come.
In a mother of all surprises, the esteemed Supreme Court not only refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the boy but also ordered him to appear in Maharashtra court as he has hurt public (which public?) sentiments.
Of late, Supreme Count has been a champion in protecting civil liberties and taking on the Legislature heads-on in matter of public concern. This decision, however, has the power to undo every good it has done. I do not remember a more irrational judgement being passed in recent memory.
It appears to me that the honourable Court thinks that since the politicians are (supposedly) elected by the public, only they can hurt public sentiments. May be it forgot that most of the politicians do not have sentiments at all. MNS, in name of regional pride, can kick out all non-Maharashtrians. GJM can order the name of State in office addresses to be changes to Gorkhaland because it wants a new state. No one checks Sri Ram Sena as they are 'protecting' Indian culture. Christians are burned in Orissa, Hindus in J&K, Muslims in UP & Gujrat. Apparently, although the public was brutalized, no public sentiment was hurt. No politician was punished by the Supreme Court. Jai ho!!
A youth just provided a forum where people voiced their opinion and the Court was more than happy to classify this as hurting public sentiments. With the same principles, there should be a ban on public debates, public speeches and newspaper alike. There will always be someone some where who will not agree with what you say and sentiments being hurt.
True, I have a right to speech so long as it does not hurt others. But then, should the rule not apply to everyone alike? Why single out a boy who will not be able to defend himself with the hungry wolves lurching in his background? Why not stop the politicians who think it is a fashion statement to make inflationary speeches?
May be the honourable Supreme Court can answer my plight. Let me know if the days of expressing my opinion are over or do I need to get approval from the Supreme Court before posting to my blog.
Oh, before I end, I have a small request. Very humbly, I apologise to any individual or the Supreme Court if I have hurt any public sentiments. Please, please, please do not get hurt. You can prevent one more criminal case from being added to the judiciary's ever increasing burden on pending cases.
I am scared today, like the day after 26/11. When I walked back to office the next day morning, I had a feeling that someone might just walk out of nowhere and riddle my body with bullets. Today, I do not know when I might just offend public sentiments and HAVE to appear in the court for criminal proceedings.
Ajith had only started a community in Orkut on Shiv Sena where people posted their views on the political party. Going by its track record, it was not surprising then that some of the comments were strong and harsh. Rubbed the wrong way, its youth wing secretary lodged a criminal case against the 19-year old. So far, its a day-to-day affair. The shock was to come.
In a mother of all surprises, the esteemed Supreme Court not only refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the boy but also ordered him to appear in Maharashtra court as he has hurt public (which public?) sentiments.
Of late, Supreme Count has been a champion in protecting civil liberties and taking on the Legislature heads-on in matter of public concern. This decision, however, has the power to undo every good it has done. I do not remember a more irrational judgement being passed in recent memory.
It appears to me that the honourable Court thinks that since the politicians are (supposedly) elected by the public, only they can hurt public sentiments. May be it forgot that most of the politicians do not have sentiments at all. MNS, in name of regional pride, can kick out all non-Maharashtrians. GJM can order the name of State in office addresses to be changes to Gorkhaland because it wants a new state. No one checks Sri Ram Sena as they are 'protecting' Indian culture. Christians are burned in Orissa, Hindus in J&K, Muslims in UP & Gujrat. Apparently, although the public was brutalized, no public sentiment was hurt. No politician was punished by the Supreme Court. Jai ho!!
A youth just provided a forum where people voiced their opinion and the Court was more than happy to classify this as hurting public sentiments. With the same principles, there should be a ban on public debates, public speeches and newspaper alike. There will always be someone some where who will not agree with what you say and sentiments being hurt.
True, I have a right to speech so long as it does not hurt others. But then, should the rule not apply to everyone alike? Why single out a boy who will not be able to defend himself with the hungry wolves lurching in his background? Why not stop the politicians who think it is a fashion statement to make inflationary speeches?
May be the honourable Supreme Court can answer my plight. Let me know if the days of expressing my opinion are over or do I need to get approval from the Supreme Court before posting to my blog.
Oh, before I end, I have a small request. Very humbly, I apologise to any individual or the Supreme Court if I have hurt any public sentiments. Please, please, please do not get hurt. You can prevent one more criminal case from being added to the judiciary's ever increasing burden on pending cases.
