The Gujarat government’s decision to ban Jaswant Singh’s controversial book Jinnah — India, Partition, Independence came in for sharp criticism from the legal fraternity.
The Gujarat government’s decision to ban Jaswant Singh’s controversial book Jinnah — India, Partition, Independence came in for sharp criticism from the legal fraternity.
“It should be immediately challenged before the Gujarat high court by any one for whom freedom is of paramount importance,’’ noted civil rights lawyer Colin Gonsalves said.
“It’s illegal. The author wasn’t even asked about the contents of the book that the state deems objectionable,” he said. Gonsalves termed the statement issued by the Narendra Modi government while imposing the ban as something that one would expect from a person like “Hitler”.
The statement reads: “The book has been banned because it contains defamatory references to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who is considered the architect of modern India. It (the book) is a bid to defame Patel by distorting historical facts. So, the state government has decided to ban the book with immediate effect in wider public interest.
But who will decide whether the ban is in public interest?
Former additional solicitor general Raju Ramachandran, who has argued many book ban cases, including a ban by Karnataka two years ago, said “The government ought to have issued a notification explaining which portion of the book would affect the public order and is in not in public interest.’’
Mere issuing a statement won’t do, said Sanjay Parikh, another legal pundit. “How can the state say a certain portion of the book in question is historically wrong? There is complete non-application of mind and the ban must be challenged for finality on freedom of speech and expression,” he said.
The Supreme Court had held way back in 1947, around the time of partition, “The effect of words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, not [from the standards of] those with weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.”
Later in 1974, the court held, “It is the sole responsibility of the state to make positive efforts to resolve every possible conflict between any of the communities, castes or religions within and try every possible way to establish peace.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=tracking}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}