Stifling Dissent The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in India Copyright © 2016 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-33542 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org MAY 2016 ISBN: 978-1-6231-33542 Stifling Dissent The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in India Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 The Sedition Law ...................................................................................................................... 3 Criminal Defamation ................................................................................................................. 5 Laws Regulating the Internet .................................................................................................... 6 Counterterrorism Laws .............................................................................................................. 7 The Process is the Punishment ................................................................................................ 8 The Heckler’s Veto .................................................................................................................. 10 International Law .................................................................................................................... 14 Key Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 14 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 16 I. International and Domestic Legal Standards ................................................................... 17 The Indian Constitution .......................................................................................................... 21 Interpreting the Constitution ................................................................................................... 22 II. Laws Criminalizing Peaceful Expression and Illustrative Cases ..................................... 26 The Sedition Law ................................................................................................................... 26 Criminal Defamation ............................................................................................................... 44 Information Technology Act .................................................................................................... 54 Hurting Religious Sentiments .................................................................................................. 57 Hate Speech .......................................................................................................................... 62 Book Bans, the Heckler’s Veto, and Harassment of Authors and Artists ................................... 71 Counterterrorism Laws ............................................................................................................ 74 The Official Secrets Act, 1923 .................................................................................................. 76 III. Other Laws that Restrict Freedom of Expression .......................................................... 86 Criminal Intimidation ............................................................................................................. 86 Protection of “Public Tranquility” ............................................................................................ 87 Contempt of Court ................................................................................................................. 89 Website Blocking under the Information Technology Act ........................................................ 94 Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Tribes ................................................ 98 Penal Code Section 505(1)(c) ................................................................................................ 101 IV. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 102 To the Government of India ................................................................................................... 102 To the Indian Parliament ....................................................................................................... 102 To the Attorney General’s Office ............................................................................................ 104 To State Governments ........................................................................................................... 105 To The Judiciary .................................................................................................................... 106 To the International Community ............................................................................................ 107 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... 108 Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................................... 109 HRW Letter to the Government of India .................................................................................. 109 Appendix 2 ...................................................................................................................... 113 HRW Letter to the State Government of Tamil Nadu ................................................................113 Appendix 3 ...................................................................................................................... 116 HRW Letter to Bloomsbury India ............................................................................................ 116 Summary When it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme. —Supreme Court of India, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, March 24, 2015. Freedom of expression is protected under the Indian constitution and international treaties to which India is a party. Politicians, pundits, activists, and the general public engage in vigorous debate through newspapers, television, and the Internet, including social media. Successive governments have made commitments to protect freedom of expression. “Our democracy will not sustain if we can’t guarantee freedom of speech and expression,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in June 2014, after a month in office. Indeed, free speech is so ingrained that Amartya Sen’s 2005 book, The Argumentative Indian, remains as relevant today as ever. Yet Indian governments at both the national and state level do not always share these values, passing laws and taking harsh actions to criminalize peaceful expression. The government uses draconian laws such as the sedition provisions of the penal code, the criminal defamation law, and laws dealing with hate speech to silence dissent. These laws are vaguely worded, overly broad, and prone to misuse, and have been repeatedly used for political purposes against critics at the national and state level. While some prosecutions, in the end, have been dismissed or abandoned, many people who have engaged in nothing more than peaceful speech have been arrested, held in pre- trial detention, and subjected to expensive criminal trials. Fear of such actions, combined with uncertainty as to how the statutes will be applied, leads others to engage in self- censorship. In many cases, successive Indian governments have failed to prevent local officials and private actors from abusing laws criminalizing expression to harass individuals expressing minority views, or to protect such speakers against violent attacks by extremist groups. Too often, it has instead given in to interest groups who, for politically motivated reasons, say they are offended by a certain book, film, or work of art. The authorities then justify 1 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH | MAY 2016 restrictions on expression as necessary to protect public order, citing risks of violent protests and communal violence. While there are circumstances in which speech can cross the line into inciting violence and should result in legal action, too often the authorities, particularly at the state level, misuse or allow the misuse of criminal laws as a way to silence critical or minority voices. This report details how the criminal law is used to limit peaceful expression in India. It documents examples of the ways in which vague or overbroad laws are used to stifle political dissent, harass journalists, restrict activities by nongovernmental organizations, arbitrarily block Internet sites or take down content, and target religious minorities