CHENNAI : Tamil Nadu could be considered among the safer states in terms of law and order, but when it comes to freedom of expression, there has been limitations recently, with several incidents reported in the state.On June 29, 2017, around 4 pm, A Kuberan of Chidambaram district, a doctoral student, finished his classes and returned home from college. He lived along with his parents and also ran a computer centre along with his father. As Kuberan entered the centre, he saw two unexpected guests – policemen in civil clothes. “The inspector wants to talk to you,” one of the policemen said.
Kuberan informed his father he would be back soon. “I got on to my bike to go to the station, but the policemen insisted or rather forced me that I went with them, and we rode triples. Minutes after I entered the station, they confiscated my mobile phone, wallet and made me sit on the floor. After a while, they asked me to take out my shirt and began clicking photos of me. I resisted, and questioned them on what charges I was brought to the station,” recollected Kuberan.
From whispers at the station, he realised that the inspector was in Chennai and none of them at the station knew why they detained me. “Except that I posted something against the government on Facebook,” he added. He had put up a post calling the students of Annamalai University to gather for a protest against the ONGC project at Kathiramangalam. He also criticised the state government in the post.
“A senior police officer reached the station and asked why I wrote against government policy and was calling for a protest. I explained it was my ‘freedom of expression’ but none listened,” says Kuberan. As the news spread that Kuberan was detained by the police, his friends, family and media persons thronged the station and he was shifted to another police station for interrogation. He was remanded in Cuddalore central prison, where he spent six days before being released.
Kuberan’s case is not the first instance of social media posts against politicians and government policies landing people behind bars. He is one among the dozens of people who have faced the same fate.
Those arrested include members of political parties, students, businessman and even actors. For instance, in October 2017, a 32-year-old from Nagapattinam, G Sathishkumar, was arrested for a series of posts against ministers. Similarly, a 19-year-old engineer, Thirumurugan, was arrested at Srivilliputhur for allegedly sending abusive messages about the Prime Minister during a private conversation on Facebook Messenger. Even a 40-year-old homemaker, Mahalakshmi, was arrested from Vellore for criticising a judge for his remarks against teachers staging protest.
Previously, such arrests were made under Section 66 A of the IT Act 2000 — punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services. However, in 2015, the SC declared Section 66A as unconstitutional and struck it down, but the policemen continue to arrest people for social media posts.
“Nowadays, we have a separate team that monitors social networking platforms and if such messages are posted, we detain them. Normally, they are detained under IPC sections 124 (Assaulting President, Governor, etc., with intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power), provocation of riots and with an intent to hurt. If they morph photos, then they are remanded under the IT Act 2000,” said a senior police officer with the Central Crime Branch (CCB) of the Chennai city police.
Meanwhile, the constitution clearly states that an arrest can be made only on three grounds — if the suspect will run away, will threaten the witness and/or tamper with evidence. Henri Tiphagne, an activist and founder of People’s Watch, points out that on December 10, the UN will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the declaration on human rights defenders. According to the UN, human rights defenders seek the promotion and protection of civil and political rights.
“The National Human Rights Commission and the State Human Rights Commission should be working towards these goals, but are silent. Also, the government should have the tolerance to listen to criticism. Democratic participation is to be able to voice opposition and criticise. Only then will problems of the people be solved,” he adds.
Recently, founder of the May 17 movement, Thirumurugan Gandhi, was arrested at Bengaluru airport on charges of sedition after he spoke about the police firing in Thoothukudi at the UNHRC meeting in Geneva. However, the magistrate court refrained from remanding him, claiming there was no prima facie. But it did not end there. He was arrested for cases which were registered a year ago on him, for garlanding Ambedkar and Periyar statues.
Former Madras HC judge D Hariparanthaman pointed out that according to the Indian Constitution’s article 19 (1), Freedom of Speech and Expression should be absolute. “Article 19 protects the right regarding freedom of speech. It allows people to assemble peacefully without arms. 19(2) has nine reasonable restrictions including contempt of court, defamation, against sovereignty and integrity under which the police can detain people. To follow 19 (1) effectively, sub-clause two should be used only in emergency situations and not always. This is how it is in countries across the world, except India,” he said.