The Supreme Court's decision to stay the order of Tamil Nadu Speaker K. Kalimuthu sentencing
N. Ravi, editor of The Hindu, and five others including the editor of the Tamil daily Murasoli to 15 days simple imprisonment, on the grounds that they breached the privileges of the state legislature, was only to be expected. The order had violated the assembly's own rules which, in common with the rules governing privilege motions in all other legislatures, required that the accused be brought before the privileges committee of the House and given a chance to explain their conduct. Kalimuthu did not bother with such niceties. Giving his own special interpretation to Article 194 of the Constitution (which spells out the powers of the legislature), he sentenced four of the most respected journalists and publishers in the country to prison forthwith. In the coming days, the SC will have to decide whether the powers and prerogatives of the legislative branch of government are absolute, or whether they are constrained by the constitutional requirement to respect the fundamental right of individuals to life and liberty under Articles 19 (1) a and 21. In the light of other SC rulings, the outcome is not in serious doubt.
N. Ravi and his co-accused are not, therefore, likely to go to jail. But any relief we may feel on this account would be decidedly premature. For the question we need to ponder is: why should they have come under threat in the first place? They are not the only journalists who have been targeted by legislators in recent years, and Tamil Nadu is not the only state where this has happened, though admittedly, it is the state where this has happened most often. In nearly all cases, journalists have been victimised for doing their duty, which is precisely to report the proceedings of the legislatures fairly and accurately, and uphold public interest. What kind of political system have we created that, with increasing frequency, is punishing people simply for safeguarding democracy?
The answer is, a system whose members hold democracy in contempt. Fifty years after we adopted a democratic and federal Constitution, the 'leaders' this system has thrown up have not learned to respect the most basic of the conventions upon which it rests. These are the freedom of opinion, of speech, of assembly, of life and of liberty. Where democracy differs from authoritarianism is in that those in power do not kill, torture or imprison those who dare to voice a different opinion from them. In Tamil Nadu, the Speaker and his party, the aiadmk, seem to have forgotten this rule, or if they haven't, then hold it in utter contempt. The attack on The Hindu was not simply an attack upon the press. It was part of a much more unbridled attack upon the freedom of opinion of those opposed to the government, notably the Opposition in the state legislature, which began the very moment that J. Jayalalitha was exonerated of charges of corruption and allowed to resume chief ministership of the state. The Hindu was targeted only because it insisted upon reporting this attack upon the Opposition both inside and outside the state assembly fairly and accurately.
The tale the newspaper told, in its usual, measured way, is an ugly one. On April 12, the paper reported a statement by E.V.K.S. Elangovan, working president of the state Congress unit, urging the Centre to declare President's rule in TN because the aiadmk government had "violated all canons of democracy". Elangovan revealed that Speaker Kalimuthu had been using Rule 110 of the rules of procedure to stifle all debate in the House on important issues concerning the conduct of the government. mlas who protested were being physically ejected from the chamber under his orders. As if that was not enough, he had also issued orders forbidding journalists from talking to Opposition mlas in the assembly corridors. This confrontation with the press had culminated in the late-night arrest of R.R. Gopal, editor of the Tamil fortnightly Nakheeran on April 11. Elangovan lamented the fact that beginning with the dmk leader Karunanidhi, the Jayalalitha government had made it a practice to make such arrests late at night, at a time when courts were closed, judges asleep and lawyers hard to find, in order to ensure that the victim spent at least one night in jail.
This and three other reports on the conduct of the CM brought down a torrent of anger upon its head. The Hindu was served with a slew of defamation cases and a privilege motion was moved against the paper for its use of certain words, such as 'stinging abuse', 'unrestrained attacks on the Opposition', 'fumed', 'incensed', 'chastisement' and 'diatribe', to describe Jayalalitha's speeches on different occasions. Matters came to a head when The Hindu wrote an editorial protesting the systematic targeting of the Opposition and the media, including itself, on April 25, titled 'Rising Intolerance'. It was this that provoked Kalimuthu's intemperate action.
Knowing what we do about Jayalalitha, there's little doubt that Kalimuthu has only done her bidding. Her vindictiveness is legend in the Tamil Nadu bureaucracy. Thus, it's no surprise that although the immediate threat has been lifted, the editors and staff of The Hindu remain in danger. The police are swarming around its offices. Plainclothesmen even followed editor-in-chief N. Ram all the way to Karnataka. It's time some of the officers of the Tamil Nadu police asked themselves whether their duty requires them to 'obey orders' as many banally evil men have done throughout history, or whether they might not have a higher duty to the Constitution and to democracy.