In the face of an onslaught of criticism for an ordinance amending the Kerala Police Act, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has put it on hold for the time being. The ordinance sought to punish those guilty of spreading content by any means (including social media) that was considered derogatory or defamatory. There were provisions to award three years' jail term, a fine of Rs 10,000 or both. The authoritarian chief minister who is ruthless in silencing dissent and has scant regard for critics, has truly been caught by surprise says N V RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR reporting from Thiruvananthapuram..——–.Faced with virulent criticism and massive protests, the Kerala government has put on hold a controversial ordinance amending Section 118 (A) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. This would have enabled arrests for any social media abuse or offensive content deemed defamatory..The manner in which Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his colleague, Law Minister AK Balan, tried to push through the ordinance evoked strong criticism from all quarters as it was a clear deviation from the CPM's known stand on protecting the freedom of expression and democracy..Fear of Elections in December.The fact that the government was forced to retreat fearing backlash at a time when the state is going to the polls for local bodies in December and the all-important assembly polls in May next year has been a major setback to the chief minister. He said that the amendment to the Kerala Police Act would not be implemented "for now"..Vijayan reportedly said: "About the promulgation of the ordinance to amend the Police Act, different views have been expressed from different quarters. Even the LDF supporters who stood for the protection of democracy expressed their concerns. In this situation, it's not intended to amend the law." He also said that detailed discussions would be held in the assembly before going ahead with the ordinance..“The manner in which Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his colleague, Law Minister AK Balan, tried to push through the ordinance evoked strong criticism from all quarters as it was a clear deviation from the CPM's known stand on protecting the freedom of expression and democracy..This is a major climb down for the CM as he had taken an unrelenting stand earlier and said that all those who post content "defamatory" to individuals would be arrested, jailed and fined..It was on November 21 that Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan had signed the ordinance which sought to punish those guilty of spreading content by any means (including social media) that was considered derogatory or defamatory. There were provisions to award three years' jail term, a fine of Rs 10,000, or both..This led to a huge furore with not just the Opposition, but also cultural leaders, media persons, activists and legal experts sensing danger in the move. They stressed that the amended Act could empower the police to book anyone. Moreover, it could be used to suppress free speech, silence critics and target hostile media..Why is Sitaram Yechury silent?.Till the other day, the chief minister was reiterating that the amended Police Act would in no way be used against free speech or impartial journalism. But legal experts like Prashant Bhushan wondered how CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury could defend the state government's stand..“The fact that the government was forced to retreat fearing backlash at a time when the state is going to the polls for local bodies in December and the all-important assembly polls in May next year has been a major setback to the chief minister. .Critics pointed out that the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws–Section 66A of the IT Act and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act..But Law Minister Balan and the chief minister felt that following the repeal of these laws, there was no alternative legislation to deal with the crimes..Vijayan's main argument was that there had been complaints of women being harassed in cyberspace. There were also complaints of some online channels unleashing derogatory content against women from the tinsel world..“RSP leaders in their petition submitted that many of the expressions used in Section 118A are only cosmetically different from those which were already considered and rejected as vague in the Shreya Singhal case by the Supreme Court. The Court had struck down Section 66-A (punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service) as violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and not being saved under Article 19 (2)..Section 118A of the Act provides punishment for making, expressing, publishing, or disseminating any matter which is threatening, abusive, humiliating or defamatory..However, left legal expert Kaleeswarm Raj wrote an edit page article in a major daily questioning the logic of bringing an ordinance which bypassed the assembly and claiming that it was to protect women in cyberspace. He said that Sections 354 (A), (B), (C) and (D) of the IPC were effective enough to protect women in cyber space. "If the very law is wrong, it cannot be implemented rightly," he said..Kerala High Court moved.Meanwhile, state BJP chief K Surendran, Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) leaders Shibu Baby John, NK Premachandran and AA Azeez moved the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the amendment..Terming it as a draconian law, Surendran argued that the amendment curtails the freedom of speech and expression conferred under the Constitution of India..“Pinarayi Vijayan, known for exerting hegemonic control over the party, has been ruthless in silencing voices of dissent. He always wanted the same strategy and style to be followed in dealing with the Opposition. With scant regard for his critics, his intention was to bring the ordinance to make it yet another tool of oppression and silence opposition when the state goes to the polls. .The petition stated that the words used in Section 118A are not properly defined and could be interpreted in different ways and are of a general nature. "Injury to the mind" is not defined. Even the word "mind" is an abstract concept that is difficult to be defined. In the light of Section 118A, it may not be even possible to criticise the past performance of a representative for fear of prosecution, he added..RSP leaders in their petition submitted that many of the expressions used in Section 118A are only cosmetically different from those which were already considered and rejected as vague in the Shreya Singhal case by the Supreme Court. The Court had struck down Section 66-A (punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service) as violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and not being saved under Article 19 (2).."In the new amendment, expressions such as 'humiliating', 'threatening' and 'abusing' are not defined. Leaving such expressions to the subjective interpretation of individuals means that even diligent and conscientious citizens cannot know with certainty as to whether their acts of expressions could run afoul of Section 118A. The objects of introducing Section 118A could have been achieved through existing legal provisions which are less restrictive of the right to free speech and expression," the petition read..“During his four-and-a-half-year tenure, eight persons were shot dead on the pretext that they were Maoists. Several cases of custodial torture and even murders have been reported. .Vijayan, known for exerting hegemonic control over the party, has been ruthless in silencing voices of dissent..He always wanted the same strategy and style to be followed in dealing with the Opposition..With scant regard for his critics, his intention was to bring the ordinance to make it yet another tool of oppression and silence opposition when the state goes to the polls..During his four-and-a-half-year tenure, eight persons were shot dead on the pretext that they were Maoists. Several cases of custodial torture and even murders have been reported..During the riots that broke out in the wake of the Supreme Court's verdict on young women's entry into Sabarimala Temple, his government registered many cases and arrested over 30,000 people. Among them, were women and children..His authoritarian acts have made his party colleagues silent. But his latest effort to silence critics has come a cropper..(NV Ravindranathan Nair is a senior journalist based in Thiruvananthapuram. He also writes on environment, culture, society and issues of human interest. Views are personal.)
In the face of an onslaught of criticism for an ordinance amending the Kerala Police Act, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has put it on hold for the time being. The ordinance sought to punish those guilty of spreading content by any means (including social media) that was considered derogatory or defamatory. There were provisions to award three years' jail term, a fine of Rs 10,000 or both. The authoritarian chief minister who is ruthless in silencing dissent and has scant regard for critics, has truly been caught by surprise says N V RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR reporting from Thiruvananthapuram..——–.Faced with virulent criticism and massive protests, the Kerala government has put on hold a controversial ordinance amending Section 118 (A) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. This would have enabled arrests for any social media abuse or offensive content deemed defamatory..The manner in which Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his colleague, Law Minister AK Balan, tried to push through the ordinance evoked strong criticism from all quarters as it was a clear deviation from the CPM's known stand on protecting the freedom of expression and democracy..Fear of Elections in December.The fact that the government was forced to retreat fearing backlash at a time when the state is going to the polls for local bodies in December and the all-important assembly polls in May next year has been a major setback to the chief minister. He said that the amendment to the Kerala Police Act would not be implemented "for now"..Vijayan reportedly said: "About the promulgation of the ordinance to amend the Police Act, different views have been expressed from different quarters. Even the LDF supporters who stood for the protection of democracy expressed their concerns. In this situation, it's not intended to amend the law." He also said that detailed discussions would be held in the assembly before going ahead with the ordinance..“The manner in which Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his colleague, Law Minister AK Balan, tried to push through the ordinance evoked strong criticism from all quarters as it was a clear deviation from the CPM's known stand on protecting the freedom of expression and democracy..This is a major climb down for the CM as he had taken an unrelenting stand earlier and said that all those who post content "defamatory" to individuals would be arrested, jailed and fined..It was on November 21 that Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan had signed the ordinance which sought to punish those guilty of spreading content by any means (including social media) that was considered derogatory or defamatory. There were provisions to award three years' jail term, a fine of Rs 10,000, or both..This led to a huge furore with not just the Opposition, but also cultural leaders, media persons, activists and legal experts sensing danger in the move. They stressed that the amended Act could empower the police to book anyone. Moreover, it could be used to suppress free speech, silence critics and target hostile media..Why is Sitaram Yechury silent?.Till the other day, the chief minister was reiterating that the amended Police Act would in no way be used against free speech or impartial journalism. But legal experts like Prashant Bhushan wondered how CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury could defend the state government's stand..“The fact that the government was forced to retreat fearing backlash at a time when the state is going to the polls for local bodies in December and the all-important assembly polls in May next year has been a major setback to the chief minister. .Critics pointed out that the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws–Section 66A of the IT Act and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act..But Law Minister Balan and the chief minister felt that following the repeal of these laws, there was no alternative legislation to deal with the crimes..Vijayan's main argument was that there had been complaints of women being harassed in cyberspace. There were also complaints of some online channels unleashing derogatory content against women from the tinsel world..“RSP leaders in their petition submitted that many of the expressions used in Section 118A are only cosmetically different from those which were already considered and rejected as vague in the Shreya Singhal case by the Supreme Court. The Court had struck down Section 66-A (punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service) as violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and not being saved under Article 19 (2)..Section 118A of the Act provides punishment for making, expressing, publishing, or disseminating any matter which is threatening, abusive, humiliating or defamatory..However, left legal expert Kaleeswarm Raj wrote an edit page article in a major daily questioning the logic of bringing an ordinance which bypassed the assembly and claiming that it was to protect women in cyberspace. He said that Sections 354 (A), (B), (C) and (D) of the IPC were effective enough to protect women in cyber space. "If the very law is wrong, it cannot be implemented rightly," he said..Kerala High Court moved.Meanwhile, state BJP chief K Surendran, Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) leaders Shibu Baby John, NK Premachandran and AA Azeez moved the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the amendment..Terming it as a draconian law, Surendran argued that the amendment curtails the freedom of speech and expression conferred under the Constitution of India..“Pinarayi Vijayan, known for exerting hegemonic control over the party, has been ruthless in silencing voices of dissent. He always wanted the same strategy and style to be followed in dealing with the Opposition. With scant regard for his critics, his intention was to bring the ordinance to make it yet another tool of oppression and silence opposition when the state goes to the polls. .The petition stated that the words used in Section 118A are not properly defined and could be interpreted in different ways and are of a general nature. "Injury to the mind" is not defined. Even the word "mind" is an abstract concept that is difficult to be defined. In the light of Section 118A, it may not be even possible to criticise the past performance of a representative for fear of prosecution, he added..RSP leaders in their petition submitted that many of the expressions used in Section 118A are only cosmetically different from those which were already considered and rejected as vague in the Shreya Singhal case by the Supreme Court. The Court had struck down Section 66-A (punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service) as violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and not being saved under Article 19 (2).."In the new amendment, expressions such as 'humiliating', 'threatening' and 'abusing' are not defined. Leaving such expressions to the subjective interpretation of individuals means that even diligent and conscientious citizens cannot know with certainty as to whether their acts of expressions could run afoul of Section 118A. The objects of introducing Section 118A could have been achieved through existing legal provisions which are less restrictive of the right to free speech and expression," the petition read..“During his four-and-a-half-year tenure, eight persons were shot dead on the pretext that they were Maoists. Several cases of custodial torture and even murders have been reported. .Vijayan, known for exerting hegemonic control over the party, has been ruthless in silencing voices of dissent..He always wanted the same strategy and style to be followed in dealing with the Opposition..With scant regard for his critics, his intention was to bring the ordinance to make it yet another tool of oppression and silence opposition when the state goes to the polls..During his four-and-a-half-year tenure, eight persons were shot dead on the pretext that they were Maoists. Several cases of custodial torture and even murders have been reported..During the riots that broke out in the wake of the Supreme Court's verdict on young women's entry into Sabarimala Temple, his government registered many cases and arrested over 30,000 people. Among them, were women and children..His authoritarian acts have made his party colleagues silent. But his latest effort to silence critics has come a cropper..(NV Ravindranathan Nair is a senior journalist based in Thiruvananthapuram. He also writes on environment, culture, society and issues of human interest. Views are personal.)
