Q.19. “Right to dissent is the lifeline of democracy.” Explain.

The right to dissent is fundamental to a vibrant democracy, as it...

October 9, 2024
12:55 pm

The right to dissent is fundamental to a vibrant democracy, as it allows citizens to express disagreement with government policies, actions, or decisions. In a democratic society, the freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, provides the foundation for this right. Dissent is essential for ensuring that a pluralistic society thrives, allowing for diverse opinions and checks on power. Without the freedom to express dissent, democracy risks becoming autocratic, as the government would not be held accountable by its citizens.

Right to Dissent as the Lifeline of Democracy

1. Constitutional Provisions and Fundamental Rights

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) ensures the right to peaceful assembly. These rights empower citizens to express dissent against policies, laws, or governance issues they disagree with.
The right to dissent helps citizens participate in democratic processes and ensures that the government remains responsive to their needs and opinions. Without dissent, democracy becomes a hollow formality, as the free flow of ideas and debates would be stifled.
Quote: As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted, “The right to dissent is a symbol of a vibrant democracy; suppression of dissent is a feature of authoritarian regimes.”

2. Supreme Court Cases Affirming the Right to Dissent

Ramleela Maidan Case (2012): In this case, the Supreme Court condemned the midnight crackdown on a peaceful protest led by Baba Ramdev at Delhi’s Ramleela Maidan. The Court ruled that the right to peacefully protest is a constitutional right and that the state’s use of force was unjustified. It emphasized that peaceful dissent, even in the form of protests, is a critical aspect of democracy.
- Judgment: The Court ruled that “citizens have a fundamental right to protest and express their views, but in a peaceful and orderly manner.” This case underscored the significance of dissent in a democratic society, ensuring that the government does not suppress non-violent opposition.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized certain types of online speech. The Court held that the section was unconstitutional as it violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). The judgment highlighted the importance of dissent in the digital age, safeguarding individuals’ right to express dissenting opinions online.

3. Importance of Dissent in a Democracy

Encouraging Pluralism: A democracy is defined by the plurality of views and opinions. The right to dissent ensures that minority opinions are heard, fostering a culture of debate and dialogue. This pluralism helps prevent the tyranny of the majority by providing space for dissenting voices to be considered in decision-making.
Accountability and Governance: Dissent serves as a mechanism to hold governments accountable. Through peaceful protests, petitions, and debates, citizens can express dissatisfaction with laws and policies, compelling the government to re-evaluate decisions.
- Example: The anti-CAA protests (2019-2020) and the farmer protests (2020-2021) demonstrated how dissent can shape public policy. These large-scale movements forced the government to engage with dissenting voices, even leading to the repeal of the farm laws.
Social and Political Change: Historically, dissent has driven major social reforms. The Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, and India’s own freedom movement against British colonialism are all examples of how dissent played a crucial role in achieving justice and equality.
Quote: Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.” This highlights the constructive role of dissent in fostering social and political change.

4. Reasonable Restrictions on the Right to Dissent

While dissent is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Article 19(2) of the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, and defamation. These restrictions are necessary to maintain peace and prevent violent uprisings that can destabilize the state.
Example: In the Shaheen Bagh protests (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the right to dissent but also ruled that protests should not infringe on public order or cause inconvenience to the general public. While the Court recognized the protesters’ right to oppose the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), it also emphasized that such dissent must be balanced with the right of others to use public spaces.

Challenges to the Right to Dissent in India

Misdirected Use of Laws:
○ Laws such as sedition (Section 124A) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are often used to curb dissent, labeling dissenting voices as anti-national or a threat to the state. This misuse of laws limits legitimate expressions of dissent and creates a chilling effect on free speech.
○ Example: Several activists, including Sudha Bharadwaj, Gautam Navlakha, and others, were charged under UAPA for their alleged involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence, raising concerns about the criminalization of dissent.

Media and Dissent:
○ The media, which should serve as a platform for constructive dissent and debate, has often been accused of polarization and bias, limiting the space for critical voices. The media’s role as the fourth pillar of democracy is compromised when it fails to present a balanced view, leading to undue marginalization of dissenting opinions.
Threats to Activists and Journalists:
○ Journalists and human rights activists who dissent against state policies or expose corruption are often subject to intimidation, legal harassment, and even violence. This limits their ability to critique the government, and weakens the culture of dissent.
○ Example: The killing of journalist Gauri Lankesh in 2017, who was known for her outspoken criticism of the government and certain ideologies, is a stark reminder of the dangers faced by those who dissent.

The right to dissent is indeed the lifeline of democracy. It ensures that democracy remains dynamic, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of all its citizens, including those who hold dissenting views. Supreme Court judgments, such as the Ramleela Maidan case and the Shreya Singhal case, reaffirm the importance of dissent as a fundamental democratic right. However, challenges like misuse of laws, media bias, and violence against dissenters must be addressed to protect this essential right. A healthy democracy thrives on open debate and the ability to peacefully challenge authority, which ensures that governance remains transparent, accountable, and just.