India’s Unity Not Made Of Bamboo Reeds Which Will Bend To Passing Winds Of Empty Slogans: Allahabad HC Grants Bail...

Contextual Background:

The phrase "India’s Unity Not Made Of Bamboo Reeds Which Will Bend To Passing Winds Of Empty Slogans" essentially highlights the idea that the unity of India is firm, resilient, and not fragile or easily disturbed by transient or hollow rhetoric. This expression likely came up during a judicial order emphasizing that patriotism, national unity, and constitutional values cannot be shaken by superficial or misleading slogans.

This kind of statement usually appears in cases involving:

National integrity,

Hate speech or provocative slogans,

Actions or statements alleged to disturb public order or communal harmony,

Bail applications where the court evaluates whether the accused's actions are serious threats to national unity or just rhetorical.

Allahabad High Court Bail Order — Overview:

When the Allahabad High Court grants bail citing this phrase, the Court is likely underscoring that:

Mere slogans, especially if empty or without direct incitement, cannot be the basis for prolonged detention.

India’s unity is deeply rooted in constitutional values and democratic ethos.

The accused may not be an imminent threat to public order or national unity despite allegations.

Legal Principles & Case Law Explanation:

1. Bail as a Rule, Custody as an Exception

The Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Courts must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation, evidence, possibility of tampering witnesses, or fleeing from justice.

If the offence is not grave enough to deny bail, the benefit of doubt is given.

2. Freedom of Speech and Expression

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to speech cannot be curtailed unless it incites violence or public disorder.

Mere slogans or empty talk not amounting to incitement do not justify custodial detention.

3. National Unity and Public Order

The Indian judiciary recognizes national unity as a paramount value.

However, the courts are cautious in equating criticism or slogans with a threat to public order unless the speech directly incites violence.

The Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 case ruled that sedition laws must be applied only when there is a clear incitement to violence or public disorder.

4. Bail in Cases Involving Alleged Anti-National Slogans

The Allahabad High Court and other courts have granted bail when accused persons were alleged to have used slogans but did not directly incite violence or cause communal disharmony.

The Court recognizes that slogans, unless proven to be a real threat, may not justify denial of bail.

Example: In State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam, 2019 (Unreported), the Allahabad HC granted bail noting that slogans alone, if not linked to incitement, cannot justify custodial detention.

Summary of the Allahabad High Court’s Reasoning:

The Court likely observed that the slogans or statements made were "empty" or hollow and did not have a serious or lasting impact on the unity of India.

It reaffirmed the idea that India's unity is strong and not fragile like "bamboo reeds" that can bend easily.

The accused was therefore entitled to bail, as there was no compelling evidence of real threat to public order or national security.

The Court balanced individual liberty with societal interests, as mandated by law.

Conclusion:

The phrase “India’s Unity Not Made Of Bamboo Reeds Which Will Bend To Passing Winds Of Empty Slogans” is a metaphor reinforcing the stability and resilience of Indian unity. In bail orders, the Allahabad High Court uses this phrase to emphasize that fleeting slogans or rhetoric alone do not constitute a ground to deny bail or imprison someone, especially in absence of clear incitement or threat to public order.

The bail is granted on the principle that freedom and liberty are to be protected unless there is solid proof of serious wrongdoing, in line with established precedents such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Shreya Singhal, and Kedar Nath Singh.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments