<p>The granting of bail by the supreme court to Dr Binayak Sen is an affirmation of the principle of natural justice and an assertion of the citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed rights. Sen, who has been known for his dedicated service to the poor tribals of Chhattisgarh, has been hounded by the state government for many years. It was actually his opposition to violation of the human rights of the tribals by the state machinery and exposure of corruption that made him a persona non grata. Unfortunately, the judiciary in the state seemed to have accepted the government’s charges against him uncritically and without testing them against the basic rights of citizens. He was convicted for sedition by a Raipur sessions court last year and bail was denied. The state high court at Bilaspur also denied him bail but the wrong has now been corrected by the supreme court.<br /><br />The apex court’s reasoning for granting him bail strikes at the root of the charges against him. It has held that there cannot be a case of sedition against Sen on the basis of his views, actions or alleged contacts with Maoists. Even sympathy for the Maoists does not make him a Maoist or a supporter of Maoists guilty of armed fight against the state. The court tellingly made the observation that possession of Maoist literature does not make a person a Maoist, just as the possession of Gandhi’s autobiography does not make one a Gandhian. If criticism of government policies, opposition to its actions and faith in an anti-government ideology constitute actionable sedition, freedom of expression and the right to legitimate political action will be endangered. These rights can be curbed only when there is resort to violence or incitement to it. There was none in Binayak Sen’s case.<br /><br />The supreme court’s order has not only struck down the denial of bail to Sen but weakened the charge of sedition against him. The Bilaspur high court will have to take into consideration the apex court’s view on sedition when it takes up the appeal against his conviction. The government’s continuing hostility towards him is clear from its request to the court that he be disallowed from entering the state while on bail. The court has left the matter to be decided by the trial court which, it is hoped, will be guided by the wisdom of the highest judiciary and its clarification of the issues involved in the case.</p>
<p>The granting of bail by the supreme court to Dr Binayak Sen is an affirmation of the principle of natural justice and an assertion of the citizen’s constitutionally guaranteed rights. Sen, who has been known for his dedicated service to the poor tribals of Chhattisgarh, has been hounded by the state government for many years. It was actually his opposition to violation of the human rights of the tribals by the state machinery and exposure of corruption that made him a persona non grata. Unfortunately, the judiciary in the state seemed to have accepted the government’s charges against him uncritically and without testing them against the basic rights of citizens. He was convicted for sedition by a Raipur sessions court last year and bail was denied. The state high court at Bilaspur also denied him bail but the wrong has now been corrected by the supreme court.<br /><br />The apex court’s reasoning for granting him bail strikes at the root of the charges against him. It has held that there cannot be a case of sedition against Sen on the basis of his views, actions or alleged contacts with Maoists. Even sympathy for the Maoists does not make him a Maoist or a supporter of Maoists guilty of armed fight against the state. The court tellingly made the observation that possession of Maoist literature does not make a person a Maoist, just as the possession of Gandhi’s autobiography does not make one a Gandhian. If criticism of government policies, opposition to its actions and faith in an anti-government ideology constitute actionable sedition, freedom of expression and the right to legitimate political action will be endangered. These rights can be curbed only when there is resort to violence or incitement to it. There was none in Binayak Sen’s case.<br /><br />The supreme court’s order has not only struck down the denial of bail to Sen but weakened the charge of sedition against him. The Bilaspur high court will have to take into consideration the apex court’s view on sedition when it takes up the appeal against his conviction. The government’s continuing hostility towards him is clear from its request to the court that he be disallowed from entering the state while on bail. The court has left the matter to be decided by the trial court which, it is hoped, will be guided by the wisdom of the highest judiciary and its clarification of the issues involved in the case.</p>
