Democracy demands space for dissent

The Bombay High Court deserves the nation's gratitude for reminding Mumbai Police that organising or participating in peaceful protests against the government is not tantamount to waging war against the country. Setting aside the one-year externment order against Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, general secretary of Socialist Democratic Party of India, Justice Madhav J Jamdar rightly criticised the police for attempting to turn citizens into 'slaves of the government'.

Criticism of the government and its policies is neither anti-India nor anti-government. It is the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. In a democracy, citizens are entitled to question those in power, however uncomfortable that scrutiny may be. While this right is not absolute, the threshold for curtailing it must remain exceptionally high. The state cannot deny fundamental freedoms on suspicion, inconvenience or political disagreement. Restrictions demand clear, compelling evidence that speech or protest has incited violence or posed a genuine threat to public order.

The police are duty-bound to protect both public order and constitutional liberties. Their responsibility is not to shield governments from criticism but to ensure that competing viewpoints can be expressed without fear. The state must not put its thumb on the scales of public debate. Its role is to safeguard an environment in which free expression, dissent and peaceful assembly can flourish. India prides itself on being a vibrant democracy and an open society. That reputation rests not on the absence of criticism but on its willingness to tolerate and engage with it. Treating dissent as disloyalty weakens the Republic, protecting it strengthens both the nation and the bond between citizens and the Constitution.