As the Supreme Court grants bail to the Alt News co-founder, and fact-checker, Mohammad Zubair, the apex court has commented on certain critical points that were raised by the Uttar Pradesh’s Advocate General which included that he (Zubair) must be barred from Tweeting. The court, in this regard, has made comments that not only have a weight of granting the profession of journalism, especially those who are not peddling propaganda, a new lease of life, but at the same time are enough to reiterate that the constitution guarantees protection to people when it comes to the freedom of speech.
It is bizarre to note that in the plea, the Additional Advocate General had sought such directions from the court, which not only exposes the ill temper and ill intentions of such people holding high posts, doing everything to muzzle the free and independent voices. They always fail to see it through the prism of law and are not ready to accept the fact that the rule of law needs to prevail; even if someone commits a violation, they do stand accountable before the law and face trial. These people, who think that they can twist and turn the law as per their wish, need to wake up: they cannot do, or seek what is beyond the law and what is in total violation of the constitution of India. At the same time, they need to understand that they cannot put restrictions on people on just whims and apprehensions and cannot become judge, jury, and executioner all by themselves.
With the grant of bail to Zubair, the court has once again set a precedent that bail will always remain the rule, and jail will remain to be an exception. It is something that needs to be upheld by the courts across the country while they should also come out for the protection of freedom of speech and supremacy of law through their comments, observations, and judgments. Rightly so, if a lawyer is stopped from arguing what will become of him: he could be everything but a lawyer! The same is the case with journalists because if they are stopped from writing, they could be anything but journalists. By such an observation, the court has delineated the role of a journalist and has put a stamp on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. The larger takeaway from comments made by the Supreme Court is that the constitution of India guarantees and ensures protection even to the critiques of the system under the ambit of freedom of speech, something that makes India a more vibrant and more democratic country. It is the freedom of speech that makes a system accountable, a process genuine the law above one and all. And that’s what should prevail!
