1. A Shadow on Our Rights

(Source: Page 13, The Indian Express)

Topic: GS Paper 2 – Indian Constitution, Judiciary, Fundamental Rights GS Paper 4 – Ethics in Public Life, Integrity of Institutions

Context

The editorial critiques the recent Supreme Court order in the State of NCT of Delhi vs. Ali Khan Mahmudabad case. It highlights how the judiciary, traditionally seen as the protector of civil liberties, has chosen a path of silence in a matter involving free speech, preventive detention, and the UAPA. The editorial views this decision as a retreat from the court’s constitutional role as a guardian of rights.

Background:

• Ali Khan Mahmudabad – a noted academic, historian, and columnist known for his critical views on government policy and his public intellectual work was arrested under UAPA for alleged links to Maoist sympathies during Operation Sindoor.
• Though granted bail earlier, the Supreme Court allowed his preventive detention citing national security.
• The arrest and detention were widely criticized due to the absence of direct or new evidence linking him to any acts of violence or unlawful activity.
• The case sparked nationwide debate about freedom of speech, misuse of anti-terror laws, and judicial independence.

Core Issue:

• The Supreme Court allowed the government’s preventive detention of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad under UAPA, despite no active threats or new incriminating actions post bail.

• The judgment raises concerns that the Court failed to exercise its duty as a constitutional check on executive excess.

Implications on Judicial Role:

• The judiciary’s inaction in politically sensitive cases signals a worrying trend where the court defers to executive rationale without critical scrutiny.

• The Court’s choice not to apply stricter tests for curbing liberty, especially on vague charges like “threat to unity” or “spreading disaffection,” dilutes its own precedent on free speech.

Broader Constitutional Significance:

• The editorial asserts that the Court must uphold constitutional morality, not succumb to political expediency.

• Free speech and dissent, pillars of a democracy, are now being equated with disloyalty and criminality – a dangerous precedent in a pluralistic republic.

• By taking this stance, the Court undermines its own legitimacy and emboldens future overreach by the executive.

Public Confidence and Rule of Law:

• The erosion of judicial courage damages public trust in constitutional remedies.

• The decision blurs the line between patriotism and conformity, where loyalty to the nation is defined only by political allegiance

Conclusion / Way Forward –

• The Supreme Court must reclaim its reputation as the final defender of individual liberty, especially in contexts of political dissent and preventive detention.

• A transparent framework for testing speech-related arrests and a stricter interpretation of UAPA provisions is essential to avoid misuse.

• Strengthening judicial accountability and reviving the basic structure doctrine in spirit will reinforce citizens’ trust in constitutional governance.

Practice Question: How should public officials and judges ethically balance individual rights with collective security? Illustrate with examples. (GS4 – 250 words – 15 marks)

 

Read more – 22 May 2025 : Indian Express Editorial Analysis