It seems that the judiciary once again has come to the rescue of citizens. In yet another remarkable judgment Madras High Court’s Justice GR Swaminathan upheld a persons’ ‘right to be funny’. Though written in a most light-hearted style and language, the verdict, however, dealt with one of the most important issues of contemporary politics: how national interest is being used to throttle good-natured outbursts and responses. The timing of the verdict is more crucial as currently even gestures are being interpreted as attempts to wage war against the state. Moreover, in an interesting coincidence, while Justice Swaminathan was delivering his refreshingly different verdict, minister of state for home Nityanand Rai was informing parliament that the statute books did not have any reference to the term ‘anti-national’. Notably, the only time the term had found its way to the Constitution was during the dark period of Emergency, when a new insert was made through the 42nd constitutional amendment Act of 1976, defining ‘anti-national activities’. But the 43rd constitutional amendment that followed it in the next year saw the entry being deleted, which means that as of today there is no reference to anti-national in the statute books.

The depth and seriousness of the issue involved in the case before him did not hold Justice Swaminathan back from writing a most lucid judgment, expressed in a highly endearing style. “If any satirist or cartoonist had authored this judgment, they would have proposed a momentous amendment to the Constitution of India to incorporate sub-clause (l) in Article 51-A…. To this, the hypothetical author would have added one more fundamental duty – duty to laugh.” The case related to the police registering an FIR against a CPI-ML activist who uploaded vacation pictures with the caption ‘Trip to Sirumalai for shooting practice’, which the police interpreted as preparations to wage war against the state. Justice Swaminathan quashed the FIR against the 62-year-old accused while underscoring that the case was ‘absurd and an abuse’ of legal process. While noting that ‘being funny’ and ‘poking fun at another’ is different, the court stated that “Laugh at what?” is a serious question. The court also explained why the question becomes pertinent in the backdrop of regional diversity in India.

Whether it is Bhima Koregaon or the farmers’ agitation, intolerance to criticism has been the trademark of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government ever since it came to power in 2014. Terminologies that one was used to hearing during Emergency have crept back to routine political vocabulary, with the government showing a rare sense of insecurity even towards the most innocuous remark or representation about the prevailing order. The ruling party and government bosses smelt foul about everything that was happening around as if they were intimidated by criticism. Any criticism of the government was taken as an affront to the state and branded as anti-national, though there was no such reference whatsoever in the statute books, as clarified by Modi’s minister. National interest has become a tyrannical tool that can be used against anyone, any symbol, or any representation. It is precisely this bogey that Justice Swamithanthan has exposed with such remarkable sophistication.