There is a quiet, yet profound, existential weight in the phrase, 'Don't have time to watch videos.' When the Supreme Court recently declined a plea for suo motu action regarding protests at Jantar Mantar, citing this constraint, it sparked a cascade of thoughts for me.
We live in an age where every moment, every protest, and every confrontation is captured on a pocket-sized device. We have become a culture of witnesses, constantly documenting our reality and expecting that the mere existence of a recording—a 'video proof'—should automatically trigger judicial or administrative intervention.
The Burden of Digital Evidence
The court’s stance is a reminder of the practical limitations of our institutions. While we, the digital citizens, can process reels and clips in seconds, the judiciary is tasked with the painstaking process of interpreting facts, verifying context, and ensuring procedural justice.
As I have reflected before, the velocity of information does not equate to the velocity of wisdom.
Surveillance vs. Governance
The recent discussions surrounding protests—including the ongoing demonstrations involving activists like Sonam Wangchuk and the concerns raised by Aishe Ghosh, often hinge on whether the state’s use of recording technology constitutes 'law and order' measures or 'intrusive surveillance.'
Tushar Mehta, as the Solicitor General, has defended these measures as routine. Yet, the persistent discomfort among protesters suggests that the mere presence of a camera lens can alter the nature of our democratic spaces, turning them from sites of expression into sites of performance and intimidation.
Reflections on Dissent
I have often contemplated how the space for dissent is shrinking, not necessarily through a lack of freedom, but through the overwhelming noise of administrative and digital complexity. When the court declines to act suo motu, it isn't necessarily a dismissal of the cause. Rather, it underscores a separation of powers—that not every public agitation needs to be managed by the highest court, and that the executive, through proper Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), must find the balance between maintaining public order and upholding the fundamental right to protest.
We must ask ourselves: are we offloading our collective responsibilities onto our courts because we have lost the ability to negotiate in the public square?
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
If you have read this blog carefully , you should be able to answer the following question:
"What is the primary role of the Supreme Court in regulating protests in public spaces like Jantar Mantar, versus the responsibility of the executive branch?" You can find that answer by entering this question at ( 1 ) www.HemenParekh.ai ( 2 ) www.IndiaAGI.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment