It is most interesting that while granting Binayak Sen bail, the Supreme Court almost dismissed the charge of sedition slapped on him by the Chhattisgarh government. It is shocking to see how easily life imprisonment can be awarded to a person under the existing legal provisions. Had Dr. Sen not moved the Supreme Court, he would have suffered a life term in jail for sympathising with Maoists.
Ujjal K. Pal,Kolkata
Rights organisations, conscientious people, Nobel laureates, the media and the Supreme Court should be lauded for Dr. Sen's release on bail. We do hope that the move will be a precursor to his acquittal. Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily has rightly described the law on sedition as outdated, adding that the government will revisit it.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court has made a clear distinction between a Gandhian and one who is in mere possession of Gandhian literature, between a Maoist and a Maoist sympathiser. Ruling out evidence of sedition against Dr. Sen, the court has sent a strong signal to the international community that India respects individual freedom and the spirit of the Constitution.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court's observation that no case of sedition is made out against Dr. Sen is a rap on the knuckles of the Chhattisgarh government. Introduced in the 19th century by the British to exact loyalty and enforce silence, the law on sedition is a colonial relic. Lawmakers should scrap the archaic law.
G. David Milton,Maruthancode
Dealing with the bail application of Dr. Sen, the Supreme Court questioned the logic of charging him with sedition for being in possession of some literature on Maoist ideology. Justice C.K. Prasad even asked whether the presence of Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography in someone's house means he is a Gandhian. This question was asked and answered many years ago when a companion judge of the Supreme Court (now retired) dealt with a similar case.
In 1948, when Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister and the Congress was in power in the Madras Presidency, the discovery of Nehru's book in a person's possession was held by not merely the police and the District Magistrate but also the provincial government as clear evidence of guilt. The Chief Minister admitted to the grievous error and ordered the immediate release of the person.
V.R. Lakshminarayanan,Chennai
The Supreme Court's observation that no case of sedition is made out against Dr. Sen and its reasoning that a person possessing a copy of Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography is not necessarily a Gandhian are surprising.
Can the same reasoning be applied to a person who is found to be in possession of dreaded weapons? What was the need for a doctor to meet Maoist leader Sanyal in jail and possess Maoist literature? Were these acts part of his professional duty?
C. Lakshmi Narain,Chennai