No legal provision for police to act on street gossip

Today, the state has many information channels to make the people understand the real state of affairs rather than go by street gossip.  During the 60s’ many coffee shops and hair-cut saloons used to be found with noticeboards stating “Do not talk politics here”. In the mid-seventies the state itself used to advertise “rumour mongers are nation’s evil”. It was a time when the Emergency was in force and newspapers were subject to serious censorship. The only source for communicating the otherwise censored news, was street gossip and secret hand-outs. People who sent protest letters to the then Prime Minister, objecting to the denial of Human Rights, were even incarcerated.  However, in the last one decade we are having the legitimate Right To Information (RTI) under the 2005 enactment. The idea is that the activities of the state must be open and transparent. 

We have come out of the old mode of the government functioning under secrecy covered by the Colonial Official Secrets Act. Even under the new dispensation there are some information not accessible by the general public. Though there is no privacy for public servants in their public activities, there is always a grey area where they could hide their health issues. Very recently, the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen is not eligible to know the nature of medicines purchased by Judges for which the state makes reimbursement out of its funds. 

More or less, it is agreed that the health of a public servant (not government servants) is a state secret. The high dignitaries who go for medical checkups and hospitalisation, guard these activities as a top secret. Some of them still go abroad and see to it that their health status does not get leaked. Even the ones who seek treatment in local hospitals hide such information from the public gaze. The reason being that a mass leader has to have an invincible image and he can never be vanquished.  Surprisingly, even for persons holding a higher constitutional office, there is no prescription of any health requirement in our Constitution.     

The recent arrest of two bank employees for allegedly talking about the health of the Chief Minister undergoing treatment has brought about all round condemnation. The arrest besides being illegal, also shows the over-enthusiastic action of the police. For indulging in street gossip, there is no legal provision to punish, unless such gossip is found to have aroused public passions resulting in law and order problems.  Today, gossip is exchanged not merely in street corners and public markets but also in the social media. Criticism of the state and its leaders in the social media had seen early morning arrests by the police under the infamous Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and led to public protest. 

The Supreme Court rightly struck down the provision as unconstitutional (2015- Shreya Singhal case) The Supreme Court ruled that as the controversial provision of law lacks precision and is likely to be misused, it cannot be part of a criminal law. It is not clear under what provision of criminal law the persons who are arrested for spreading rumours on the health of the Chief Minister are being booked. For that matter there is no legal provision under which these persons can be brought to trial by the police. It is more to put fear in the people and to gag them from discussing such issues.   

The answer is not state repression but sharing the information on the health of the head of the state government, over which people have a vital interest and it is also in public interest to part with such information. Only a transparent and open government can put an end to baseless street gossip. On the contrary, a state vindictiveness can only lead to more gossip. People might not have forgotten the comic strip attached to the Tamil film Thangamalai ragasiyam where even a broken drum would cry that the Raja’s ear is that of a donkey!”