Arundhati Roy Faces UAPA Prosecution For 2010 Speech On Kashmir

Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena granted sanction for the prosecution of award-winning writer Arundhati Roy under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) over an allegedly 'provocative' speech she delivered in 2010. According to a report in the Press Trust of India, Roy and former Central University of Kashmir professor Sheikh Showkat Hussain are to be prosecuted under section 45 (1) of UAPA, as revealed by a Raj Niwas official.

In 2010 at an event in Delhi, Roy delivered a speech discussing the contentious issue of Kashmir, igniting a legal and ethical debate and bringing to the forefront questions about freedom of expression in India. Roy, known for her award-winning debut novel The God of Small Things, is not only celebrated for her literary contributions but also for her impassioned essays on the plight of the marginalised in India. However, her work and activism have often landed her in hot water, making her a polarising figure in Indian society.

The 2010 Speech: A Controversial Stand

In 2010, Arundhati Roy and Sheikh Showkat Hussain, found herself embroiled in controversy. They were accused of making provocative and anti-India comments during a seminar titled 'Azadi: The Only Way.' The event focused on the issue of the separation of Kashmir from India, a topic that has been at the centre of conflict between India and Pakistan for decades.

The first information report (FIR) in the case was registered on November 28, 2010, following a complaint by Sushil Pandit and a Kashmiri Pandit organisation called 'Roots In Kashmir.' They alleged that the speeches made during the seminar were not only provocative but also jeopardised public peace and security. Lieutenant Governor, Saxena, approved the prosecution of Roy and Hussain for offences under Sections 153A, 153B, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code.

Besides Roy and Hussain, the others who made speeches included late Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, SAR Geelani (anchor of the Conference and prime accused in the Parliament attack case) and Varavara Rao. According to the complaint, Geelani and Roy strongly propagated that Kashmir was never part of India and was forcibly occupied by the Armed Forces of India and every possible effort should be made for the independence of the J-K from India.

While a case of sedition was made out, the prosecution under Section 124A (Sedition) was not approved, per a Supreme Court directive issued in May 2022. The Supreme Court had directed that all pending trials and proceedings under sedition charges be kept in abeyance. In October 2023, Saxena had granted sanction to prosecute Roy and Hussain under section 196 of CrPC for a commission of offences punishable under different sections of the Indian Penal Code. 

The Ongoing Debate: Free Speech vs. National Security

On June 14, Raj Niwas officials said, "The issues discussed and spoken about at the conference propagated the separation of Kashmir from India." This legal battle has reignited the debate on free speech in India. She has been prosecuted under section 45 (1) of UAPA. Critics stress the need for tolerance and the abolishment of the colonial-era sedition law, Section 124A, which has often been criticized for misuse. 

On the other hand, supporters of the legal action contend that speeches advocating the secession of a region as sensitive as Kashmir can pose a threat to national security. They emphasise the importance of maintaining law and order, particularly in a region that has witnessed conflict for decades.

The Bigger Picture: Press Freedom in India

The case against Arundhati Roy is not an isolated incident. India has witnessed a decline in press freedom, with its ranking dropping from 140 to 161 on the Reporters Without Borders' Media Freedom Index since 2014. Rights groups and activists have raised concerns about the targeting of activists for criminal prosecution and the suppression of free speech.

Arundhati Roy's 2010 speech and the subsequent legal action highlight the delicate balance between free speech and national security in India. As the case proceeds, it serves as a litmus test for the nation's commitment to upholding democratic values while maintaining law and order. The ongoing debate surrounding this case underscores the importance of open dialogue and the need to revisit and reform existing laws to protect free speech in a rapidly changing world.