Peaceful dissent is a constitutional right
It must be recognised as an expression of faith in the Constitution and in the democratic promise of the Republic
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
Recent observations by Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan highlight a growing concern over the shrinking democratic space in India, specifically the tendency to criminalize peaceful dissent. The article emphasizes that the right to disagree is a fundamental constitutional right, not a privilege, and warns against the use of criminal law, prolonged incarceration, and arbitrary restrictions to curtail freedom of speech and assembly.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The right to dissent is intricately linked to Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. Specifically, guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while ensures the right to assemble peacefully without arms. These provisions are not absolute; they are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and 19(3) on grounds such as public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India. However, the editorial argues that these restrictions must remain exceptional and proportionate, not routine tools to silence criticism. The judicial observations, referencing Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's famous quote 'Dissent is the safety valve of democracy', underscore that questioning government policies is a core component of democratic governance, not equivalent to anti-national activity. UPSC may ask to critically analyze the balance between national security concerns and the constitutional protection of free speech, particularly in the context of laws like or sedition ( of IPC/BNS).
Governance
A recurring theme in the article is the misuse of the criminal justice system as a mechanism for political management rather than addressing genuine crimes. The principle of 'bail is rule, jail is an exception' (enunciated in ) is reportedly being undermined, leading to prolonged incarceration without trial for activists, journalists, and students. This practice raises serious questions about civil liberties and the right to life and personal liberty under . When bail conditions are used to restrict an individual's right to free speech or participation in public life, it signifies a shift from a due process model to an authoritarian tendency. Governance in a constitutional democracy requires accountability, dialogue, and institutional integrity, not arbitrary detention. Candidates should be prepared to discuss the role of independent institutions, particularly the judiciary, as guardians of constitutional morality and civil liberties against executive overreach, drawing parallels to landmark dissents like Justice H.R. Khanna's in the .
Ethics
From an ethical perspective, the criminalization of dissent touches upon constitutional morality and the ethical responsibilities of the state. A democratic state possesses immense coercive power, and ethical governance demands restraint and adherence to the rule of law. Suppressing dissent erodes public trust and weakens the social contract between the state and its citizens. The ethical imperative of public officials and law enforcement is to protect individual liberties, even when the views expressed are unpopular or politically inconvenient. True democratic strength lies in tolerating diverse opinions and answering criticism with evidence and dialogue, not intimidation. In GS Paper 4, candidates might face case studies or theoretical questions evaluating the ethical dilemmas faced by civil servants when directed to suppress peaceful protests or invoke stringent laws against critics, testing their commitment to constitutional values over political expediency.