WE the people of India and JNU (Jawaharlal Neharu University)

‘Pretendence is such thing which ultimately compelled to know the fact to everyone, about everything for which since long the efforts are taken.’

This is the fact which now, we are experiencing but still are deliberately avoiding and ignoring its existence but are painting the imaginary colour on the real problems of our society, our country. The problems are always different than your expectation and imaginations nor does it depend on your possible solutions. At present, some part of our society is trying to impress their ideology that may be of ‘their expected secularism’, ‘their expected equalization in all sectors of society by way of communism or secularism or any other mode’ or ‘by way of Hindutva’ etc. There is hardly any difficulty to adopt any way to approach the culmination what we, the Constitution framers were expected. It is also not the case that our social reformers, who were and are interested in changing the entire ill-health of our society by removing the wrong ideas, ideas which violates the integrity with our country, society. There is no difficulty for anyone to do his best for and in the interest of our society, country, with India and Indians. The difficulty in only with your pretendence regarding your aim, object and intention which always followed with the ways those you adopt for achieving the said target.

The present case of issue regarding ‘Jawaharlal Neharu University, Delhi’ (JNU) that may be called by one part of our society as anti-social activities by the activists which are deteriorating the society, our country and are against the principles and duties expected under Constitution. The persons involved in the said issue may be Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar, Democratic Students Union (DSU), led by Umar Khalid and others. Officials said the "anti-India" slogans were raised by students belonging to DSU, considered to be a front of CPI (Maoists). Kanhaiya Kumar belongs to All India Students Federation (AISF), the students' wing of Communist Party of India, while DSU is an extreme left group. Some of them are from such organizations which are decaled as terrorist organization and there is ban by Government. Hence the case should be scrutinized and though from all angles as supporting and spreading terrorism in India, supporting the persons who are doing anti-national activities against Government and society of this country, adopting such extreme ways which may affect the social atmosphere that may be with strong financial link with such persons, countries or / and such personalities which may ruin our country, society, economy and would create anarchy here. This thoughts would never be covered, protected under the ‘Right of Expression’ as available unde Constitution.    

At the same time some part of our society are knowing it as the efforts, steps for bringing the equality in our society, country by removing the ‘Manuvad’, ‘Punjivad’, ‘Brahmanvad’ etc. If we consider the approach and way of approaching the culmination of the activists, we all may differ therein as due to the difference between the aim, object and culmination as expressed, shown and directed by the activists and the result which was are receiving, experiencing and facing. There is huge and remarkable difference between the two. Hence there is no other way but to evaluate our aim, object and culmination along with the way, idea and act which we have or activists have adopted for achieving the same. 

The statement regarding achievement of target to for any social reform by anyone is different and the way adopted by the activists for the same is different. The social reforms and reformative activities are never refused or opposed by our legislation nor that can be declared illegal by any provisions of the same. It is the expectation that the way which you have adopted for the social reform what you are thinking should really be the reformation beneficial to the society, country and also the members of society in real sense.  At any moment, it should never be the position or resulted situation that the received result from the said activities are scientifically correct but the aim and object which were / are expressed by the activists earlier while declaring their idea and its culmination, are nothing but the pretendence and proved to act, activities against the health of our society. 

The further aspect of achieving your aim, object of your ‘expected social reform’ should always be within the four corners of the existing legislation and shall never violate the legislation or any provisions of the same. It should not happened that reformation of society, following your ideas and compelling the society of your ideas should not be in the hand of law-breaking personalities or in the hands of the person who are not believing the existing legislation nor in our customs, traditions which are not against the society. The aim, target, object of those activists will also secure the importance while considering about their helping hands, nature of their followers and supporters in addition to the ultimate result over the society and also with other persons who are not their followers. If that is adverse then hardly such type of act, activities would be permitted as per the legislation.

The another aspect which generally and more hardly pressed by the activists is about the ‘Right of Expressions’ and other rights which are recognised as fundamental rights under the Constitution or by any other statute hence known as statutory rights. ‘Right of Expression and other fundamental rights’ along with other statutory rights shall always recognizes the non-violation of the rights of others. It shall never be permitted to anybody that he may violate the similar rights of others while enjoying his rights. Of course, there are certain restrictions which are expressed, declared in our Constitution that may be in the light of maintaining ‘Law and Order’ in the society, that may be about our ‘Reservation Policy’ considering the difficulties of depressed class of our society to bring them with other classes. Whatever may be solutions for any reformation but that should always be within the four corners of our Constitution and other legislations is the accepted concept while interpreting every act and while considering every activity. 

The preamble of our Constitution is the important part of it and that should not also be violated or there should not be any act, activity which would violate the preamble of our Constitution which is the basic structure and salient feature of it. In the present situation, the issue arisen from the activity initiated, performed and followed in the ‘Jawaharlal Neharu University’ (JNU) by the students / non-students is in discussion and the action which is taken against the activists is criticized by some part and strongly supported by some part and some part is in confusion that always be there in every incident. The efforts are always taken by either party to catch the other remaining part which generally is in confusion regarding the right, correct, proper and legal position of activists or against activists and their position. In the present position and situation, there would never be the issue whether you are having much supporters or not. The only thing and aspect is considered whether your act. Activity is not injurious for the society and / or violating the rights of others in addition to any violation of any provisions of law. If there anything which indicates violation of anything then you are liable for the necessary action that may be under different provisions of the legislation and may be in the nature of criminal or / and civil that depends on the Government which is having the duty as per law to maintain ‘Law and Order’ and ‘To protect the Rights of citizens’. The court has to see whether the duty was properly done by the Government as per law or there is any violation of Constitution or any provisions of law. IF there found any violation by Government or by the activists. 

A. Here, one issue out of several would be relevant for consideration in the present situation as activists are prosecuted under ‘sedition’ under Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is defined under Section 124A – 

Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards. 2[* * *] the Government established by law in 3[India], 4[* * *] shall be punished with 5[imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1-The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2-Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3-Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

1. Subs. by Act 4 of 1898, s. 4, for the original s. 124A which had been ins. by Act 27 of 1870, s. 5.

2. The words "Her Majesty or" omitted by the A.O. 1950. The words "or the Crown Representative inserted after the word "Majesty" by the A.O. 1937 were omitted by the A.O. 1948.

3. The words "British India" have successively been subs. by the A.O. 1948, the A.O.1950 and Act 3 of 1951, sec.3 and sch. to read as above.

4. The words "or "British Burma" ins. by the A.O.1937 omitted by the A.O.1948.

5. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec.117 and sch., for "Transportation for life or any shorter term" (w.e.f.1-1-1956).

B. Preamble of our Constitution – 

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a _1 [SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC] and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

And to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the _2[unity and integrity of the Nation];

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

The behaviour of the students / non-students initiated, performed and their conduct with possible, expected results would certainly come under illegal activities, considering the definition of ‘Sedition’ as this offence under IPC and the preamble of our Constitution, especially considering the word used ‘unity and integrity of Nation’, it is very clear that anyone if even heard their slogans would come to the conclusion that prima facie this offence is committed by the activists by their activity initiated, followed and conducted in ‘Jawaharlal Neharu University’ (JNU). If the consequences of their activities are considered which are faced by other students, teachers or staff of the ‘JNU’ then those would certainly be dangerous for them. There is hence no other alternative but to protect the interest of nation and society by adopting all possible weapons available under law. The support from the society, citizens is always important to solve such type of issues. In addition to this, if those activities and their consequences on all parts of society are considered more seriously, then that would come to the following conclusions – 

1. The act, activities, slogans and their behaviour is certainly comes under the offence of ‘sedition’ which is defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and interpreted severally by our courts.1   

2. The act and activities is certainly against the preamble of our Constitution, especially considering the concept of ‘unity’ as expressed therein which is interpreted and described severally by our courts. 2 

1. Section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860

a. Nazir Khan and others v. State of Delhi (Supreme Court)

b. Raghubir Singh and others  v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court)

c. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (Supreme Court)  

d. State of U. P v. Mohd. Ishq Ilmi (Supreme Court)

e. Smt. P. Hemalatha Petitioner v. The Govt. of A.P

f. Ali Muhammad Khadim v. The Crown

g. Salman v. State of Kerala 

h. P. Nedumaran Petitioner v. State

  

2. Preamble of our Constitution 

a. Ms. Aruna Roy and others Vs Union of India and others