Greenpeace- Stirring up a hornet’s nest?

The Central Government’s chalice of troubles seems to be overflowing as it inches closer to completing a year in power. Amidst multiple allegations of being insensitive to minorities due to inaction over church vandalism and perceived silencing of dissenting voices, it has been a shaky few months for a government that rode to power on the plank of change and empowerment..Incidents like the Govind Pansare shooting, the “death” of Perumal Murugan, and Greenpeace activist Priya Pillai’s ‘offloading’ controversy have highlighted the Centre’s uneasiness over opinions that are non-conformist and do not toe the line drawn by political masters..Priya Parameshwaran Pillai is an activist associated with Greenpeace and involved with work in the tribal region of Mahan, Madhya Pradesh. On January 11 this year, she was headed to the UK to address the Parliament on her initiatives on renewable energy sources that are underway in Mahan. The tickets for this visit were sponsored by the UK wing of Greenpeace, with Pillai possessing a valid visa. So when she was informed by airport officials that she would not be allowed to fly to London as there was a Look-out Circular (LOC) issued against her by the Intelligence Bureau, Pillai was amazed and surely, not amused. To add insult to injury, her name was included in the “no-fly” list after the LOC was issued and her passport was stamped as “OFFLOAD” by the immigration officials..Terming the incident as a deliberate attempt to malign her reputation and restrict her freedom of speech (Pillai was due to address British MPs on issues of rampant human rights violation that have occurred due to a coal mining project being set up in Mahan), Pillai approached the Delhi High Court. Before the High Court, Pillai sought the quashing of the LOC as well as expunging of the dubious credentials stamped on her passport. Appearing for Pillai was the, former Additional Solicitor General of India Indira Jaising, a lawyer who is renowned for her work in the realm of women and child rights. Jaising argued that the actions of the IB officials were in utter disregard of the legal procedures as well as their scope of powers. Jaising further went on to state that under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is expressly clear that save for the restrictions imposed with the authority of law, the right to free speech is an absolute one and the LOC in this case was not backed by authority of law. Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor General appeared for the Centre and defended the actions of the government. Jain said that the IB possessed ‘strong intel’ to stop Pillai’s travel and consequently, preventing her from indulging in anti-national activities against the Union. Dismissing these arguments as nothing but a front for legitimising arbitrary actions to suppress criticism against the government. Jaising also said that Pillai was being targeted due to her association with Greenpeace, which has previously been under the government scanner due to questionable funding. Jaisingh said that the freedom of speech, the right to personal liberty and the right to form associations formed a ‘golden triangle’ that ought not to be negotiated if one wanted to encourage and protect free thought in a democratic society..Expectedly, the Ministry of Home Affairs has stuck by its original stand. According to the MHA’s affidavit, India would be vulnerable to potential sanctions resulting from Pillai’s meeting with the British all-party parliamentary group. The affidavit that was filed in the High Court on 13th February, further went on to state that the UK, US and European Parliament bring out heavily biased annual reports on rights violations which could be used as instruments as had been done recently in the cases of Iran, Russia and North Korea..It is difficult to assuage the mood of the court, though some of the observations made are indicative. Justice Rajiv Shakder, who has been hearing the matter, once remarked that India wasn’t that fragile a democracy to crumble in the face of any negative perceptions that may get formed if Pillai is allowed to travel and address a foreign country, upon the problems plaguing the Indian setup. This obiter packs in quite the punch regarding the whole controversy. Though the High Court has reserved its judgment on the issue, there is a different kind of message that is being sent out by the government when it indulges in such episodes of arbitrariness-‘Be with us or be against us’. A conscientious and awakened citizenry would weigh that as a bigger dent on the image that India projects to the world; of being a politically vibrant democracy which protects the rights of its people and dutifully follows the due process of law. Imposing blanket bans or gagging individuals in no way espouses the tenets of a welfare state and neither do they buttress its safety. Even if one were to tread cautiously, avoid pointing accusatory fingers and consider the rationale provided by the MHA, it mustn’t be forgotten that statutory powers exist for a reason..The Delhi High Court itself has upheld this view and held in the case of Vikram Sharma vs. UOI :-. ‘The power to issue an LOC, the power to offload a passenger and prevent him or her from travelling are all extraordinary powers, vested in the criminal law enforcement agencies by the statutory law. These are powers that are required under the law, to be exercised with caution and only by the authorities who are empowered by law to do so and then again only for valid reasons.’ Evidently, the IB does not have a statutory basis to exercise any lawful authority before issuing the LOC..Neither was Pillai a known fugitive who was being investigated or under trial, nor did she have any criminal antecedents on her record which would declare her as a threat to national security. So the actions of the IB and MHA only goes to highlight that the government is uncomfortable over opinions that may open a Pandora’s Box regarding administrative and political failures. Is that a worrisome situation? Indeed it is. Because we are witnessing this in the land that gave us the Maneka Gandhi judgment wherein not only was the right to travel abroad made an integral part of Article 21 but where the ‘golden triangle’ of rights came to be formulated. By not allowing Ms. Pillai the same rights (or privilege, as the government may like to call it) we stand the risk of being regimented and not regulated..Noted political commentator and philosopher Naom Chomsky once said, “If we do not believe in the freedom of speech for people we despise, we do not believe in it at all.” We belong to a democratic society. Let us be proud and not ashamed of it.