Justice Oka: The people's judge, a champion of liberty
On May 23, as we say goodbye to Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, who started his legal practice at the Thane District Court, it is an occasion to let his judgments do the talking. He championed free speech, liberty and equality. He has been instrumental in relaxing bail conditions in special statutes like the UAPA, and often came down heavily on authorities for arbitrary and illegal demolitions.
In Sheikh Zahid Mukhtar's case (2016), a bench comprising Justice Oka struck down two amendments to the Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976. It was held that Section 5D (incriminating possession of flesh of any cow, bull, etc, slaughtered outside Maharashtra) infringed the right to privacy. This was done at a time when privacy had yet to be recognised as a fundamental right in K S Puttaswamy's case (2017).
The arrests of students, political activists have become frequent and securing bail has turned out to be a tedious exercise. But in Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India (2024), Justice Oka held that even in UAPA, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. In February 2025, pulling up the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for keeping Indian Telecommunication Service officer Arun Kumar Tripathi in custody under PMLA, Oka said, 'Concept of PMLA cannot be to ensure that a person should remain in jail.'
In a PIL filed by Tushar Gandhi, a bench of Justice Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reaffirmed that the Uttar Pradesh government must bear the educational expenses — including tuition, uniforms, books, and transport — of a seven-year-old Muslim boy who was assaulted by classmates in Muzaffarnagar in 2023 after a teacher allegedly made communal remarks and instigated her students. The bench emphasised that while charitable organisations or schools could provide assistance, the primary responsibility lies with the state.
During Covid, anti-CAA protests were on the rise across the country and Section 144 was imposed in Bengaluru in December 2019. Justice Oka, back then, was the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, and in Sowmya R Reddy's case (2020), he said the prohibitory order under Section 144 was illegal and violative of the fundamental right to hold peaceful protests.
A bench led by Justice Oka also came to the rescue of a professor who was charged under Section 153A for updating his WhatsApp status, which was critical of the abrogation of Article 370. The Court in Javed Ahmad's case (2024) not only quashed the criminal case against the professor but also observed that if every criticism or protest against the state is to be held as an offence under 153A, then democracy will not survive.
In Zulfiquar Haider's case (April 2025), calling the act of demolition 'illegal and arbitrary', Justice Oka came down heavily on the Prayagraj Development Authority and other state authorities for demolishing the houses of six individuals and directed them to pay Rs 10 lakh each to the aggrieved. He remarked, 'There is something called the right to shelter and due process.'
In contrast to the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case (May 2025), when a bench led by Justice Surya Kant, even after granting interim bail, remarked that one must be careful while expressing their opinion, Justice Oka, in Abdul Sathar's case (May 2025), granted bail to a Popular Front of India secretary and observed that we cannot put someone in jail because of their ideology.
He will be remembered not only for his judgments but also for his commitment to promoting litigation, pushing young lawyers to take up pro bono cases and reconstructing bail jurisprudence in the case of special statutes like UAPA and the PMLA. He will remain a beacon of hope and an inspiration.
Upon his retirement, he must have looked forward to cherishing moments with his own. Yet, in a cruel twist of fate, he lost his mother, who passed away on May 21. Still, he returned to the bench on his final day, delivering 11 judgments with remarkable resolve. His influence will remain, ensuring that compassion, integrity, and tireless service shape future generations.
The writer is an advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
39 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I disagree: Not all speech is free
The constitutional right to free speech — a fundamental democratic principle — is often misinterpreted. The editorial ('Whose free speech?', IE, June 3) circumvents the context, intent and impact of free speech by defending Sharmistha Panoli's inflammatory social media post, targeting Islam and the Prophet, as a legitimate exercise of free expression. An important disclaimer: My disagreement with the editorial is not a defence or endorsement of the carceral state. Rather, beyond the over-simplistic binaries, the focus here is on recognising hate speech as a form of violence. While the editorial rightly criticises the overzealous police action in arresting the 22-year-old law student — she was later released on bail — it ignores the context that enabled Panoli's remarks and fails to acknowledge the target of her outburst. Panoli's words are far from being an act of reckless indiscretion; they feed into the volatile environment, increasingly marginalising, vilifying, and disproportionately targeting Muslims. The editorial, too, acknowledges that Panoli's post echoed 'some of the most hurtful anti-minority tropes in circulation'. However, more than the troubling content of Panoli's post, one should be wary of the political sentiments that consider Muslims to be demographic threats. Condemning arrests for online posts is crucial, but one must differentiate between freedom of expression and provocative speech that perpetuates targeted hatred against marginalised communities. The editorial failed to realise the essence of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015). The judgment upholds freedom of speech but doesn't legitimise hate speech. On the contrary, the SC has clearly defined the boundaries between protected free expression and punishable hate speech. In Shreya Singhal, the court established a crucial framework by distinguishing three categories of speech: Discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It held that 'mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause, howsoever unpopular, is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution', and is therefore protected. However, as the court noted, once such speech crosses the line into incitement — particularly incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder — Article 19(2) applies, and restrictions become constitutionally valid. By drawing this line, Shreya Singhal underscores a crucial principle: The right to free speech does not encompass a right to incite harm or hatred against others. Many judicial precedents affirm this critical distinction. Notably, in three rulings in 2018 — Tehseen Poonawalla vs Union of India, Kodungallur Film Society vs Union of India, and Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, the SC went a step further, laying down guidelines to prevent and address hate speech and vigilante violence. However, these directives have largely remained on paper, with little to no meaningful implementation. The antidote to overzealous state action cannot be universal impunity. The editorial rightly points out that young Muslims have often been arrested for social media posts and labelled 'anti-national' or 'pro-Pakistan', often with little evidence of real harm. But to use that injustice to suggest that no one should be held accountable for incendiary speech is a fallacy. The discourse on free speech must be shaped by consistent legal principles, not by selective outrage and the use of legal machinery by those in power. The solution to the wicked problem of protecting free speech lies in equal and principled application of the law, not in abandoning accountability altogether. In a system that disproportionately targets minority voices while mostly excusing and sometimes even celebrating those who vilify them, the overwhelming defence from all political cadres for free expression is amusing. The double standard is made evident through the ruling party's sudden invocation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression, championing Panoli's right to free speech while silencing dissenting voices from marginalised communities — the latest, the arrest of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, is a case in point. Defending insidious speech on the grounds of constitutional liberty risks defending the right to hate, a right not promised by the Constitution. The writer teaches law at Jamia Hamdard
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
In west UP, Yogi recalls Kairana exodus, reasserts ‘batenge toh katenge pitch'
: Reasserting his 'batenge toh katenge' pitch in western Uttar Pradesh, chief minister Yogi Adityanath on Wednesday recalled the Hindu exodus from Kairana and Kandhla, an issue that had gained prominence in 2016 and played out in the 2017 Uttar Pradesh assembly polls which the BJP won, marking the beginning of Adityanath's innings as CM. Yogi Adityanath made the remark during his address at the Sant Samagam and Satsang event at Shukteerth, Muzaffarnagar. The Kairana and Kandhla migration controversy, often termed the 'Hindu exodus,' refers to claims of mass migration of Hindu families from these towns in Shamli district of western Uttar Pradesh between 2014 and 2016. The then BJP MP Hukum Singh had alleged in June 2016 that over 346 Hindu families fled Kairana, and later 63 from Kandhla, due to threats and extortion by Muslim criminals, notably Mukim Kala. A National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) report partially supported the claims, stating some families left due to fear. The controversy, amplified before the 2017 UP elections but was criticized as a BJP tactic to polarise voters. Hukum Singh partially backtracked on his initial claims about the 'Hindu exodus' from Kairana and Kandhla in UP. Singh later clarified on June 14, 2016, that the migration was 'not communal' but due to law and order issues and threats by goons. He omitted the word 'Hindu' from the Kandhla list's title and acknowledged the issue was about crime, not religion, though he stood by the lists' core claims. Seen as a call for unity and warning against social divisions, the phrase 'batenge toh katenge' (if we divide, we will be cut/destroyed) is a political slogan frequently used by Adityanath and other Bharatiya Janata Party leaders. It is often accompanied by the slogan 'Ek rahenge toh nek rahenge' (if we stay united, we will remain well/prosperous).' Adityanath himself first used the slogan in August 2024 and subsequently in the Uttar Pradesh assembly bypolls and the Haryana and Maharashtra assembly polls. Adityanath's remarks, seen as a counter to Akhilesh Yadav's PDA (Pichde, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) campaign, are expected to resonate in his future addresses too. For his part, the chief minister, who was speaking at the 65th death anniversary of Sant Swami Gyan Bhikshuk Das Ji Maharaj and in memory of Satguru Samandas Ji Maharaj in Muzaffarnagar on Wednesday, said unity, inspired by the teachings of saints, is the antidote to such societal fractures. 'When the country was struggling under foreign invasions during the medieval period and its culture and religion were under attack, Satguru Ravidas Ji emerged as a divine light.' Ravidas led by example, offering the nation spiritual guidance that still resonates today, he said. 'Guru Ravidas and Swami Bhikshuk Das have shown us the path of unity, which prevents incidents like Kairana and Kandhla,' Yogi Adityanath told a large gathering. 'This path ensures our security, progress, and strength in all circumstances.' 'He (Ravidas) raised awareness against social evils and blind practices, inspired faith in action over ritual, and kindled spiritual consciousness,' Adityanath said, and quoted Ravidas's famous saying, 'Mann changa to katoti mein Ganga' – If the mind is pure, divinity resides even in the smallest vessel. Highlighting the BJP-led government's efforts, he noted the transformation of Sant Ravidas's birthplace in Seer Govardhan, Varanasi. 'Before 2014, it was accessible only by a single-lane road. We built a four-lane highway, a grand ashram, a magnificent statue, an 'Anna Kshetra,' and a park,' he said. He credited PM Narendra Modi's vision, citing the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, which provides free food grains to 81 crore people, as a realisation of Ravidas's dream of equality. Describing Shukteerth as a sacred site where Shukdev narrated the first Shrimad Bhagavat 5,000 years ago, Adityanathi called Sanatan Dharma the only tradition with such an unbroken spiritual legacy. He announced infrastructure upgrades for the Samandas Ashram, including a ghat, widened roads, beautification, parking, and a satsang hall. He praised Ravidas's guru, Sant Ramanand, for spreading the message: 'Jaat-paat poochhe nahi koi, Hari ko bhaje so Hari ka ho (No one asks about caste, those who worship Hari become one with Hari).' The chief minister criticised past governments for neglecting Babasaheb Ambedkar's legacy, noting that PM Modi established the Panchteerths and declared November 26 as the Constitution Day. Shukteerth, or Shukratal, in Muzaffarnagar draws pilgrims from across India. Nestled along the banks of the Ganga River, the destination lies approximately 28 kilometres from Muzaffarnagar. Those present at the event included Mahant Govardhan Das Maharaj, Swami Omanand Maharaj, Nirmal Das Maharaj, MP Chandan Chauhan, ministers Anil Kumar, Kapil Dev Agarwal, Somendra Tomar, former MP Sanjeev Balyan, and MLAs Rajpal Balyan, Vandana Verma, Mithilesh Pal, and Vikram Saini.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
BSP bid to woo OBCs to regain lost ground ahead of 2027 polls in U.P.
The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) has launched an outreach programme to mobilise support from the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in a bid to regain lost ground in Uttar Pradesh ahead of the 2027 assembly elections. BSP state unit president Vishwanath Pal said the party is organising OBC cadre camps in all 403 assembly constituencies across U.P, aiming to win back the support of backward communities that have been the backbone of the party since its inception in 1984. Party leaders and office-bearers have been directed to hold cadre camps in rural areas of each constituency. The district and assembly unit functionaries will reach out to OBC voters and apprise them of the welfare schemes launched by the previous BSP governments, Pal said. He added that the party would also inform OBCs about its future plans for their empowerment if it forms the government in 2027. The progress of these cadre camps will be reviewed monthly at the party's state headquarters. Members of backward communities, including Kurmi, Maurya, Kushwaha, Rajbhar, Pal, Nishad, Nai, Noniya, Bind, Mallah, Gujjar, and Prajapati, have been inducted into the camps. The BSP has also reactivated its 'bhai-chara' committees comprising members of various OBC groups, to consolidate its base among these voters. After losing power in the 2012 assembly elections, BSP president Mayawati attempted to woo Muslim voters. Community leaders were made zonal and divisional coordinators, and Muslim candidates received a lion's share of tickets in the 2014, 2019, and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as well as in the 2017 and 2022 assembly polls. However, the BSP candidates lost in Muslim-dominated constituencies. Following its defeat in the 2022 assembly and 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Mayawati blamed the Muslim community for the party's dismal performance, stating that they preferred the Samajwadi Party and the Congress to the BSP. Mayawati has now instructed the party to refocus on backward communities. According to Vivek Kumar, a political observer, BSP founder Kanshi Ram worked on the Dalit- OBC formula to spread the Bahujan movement in U.P. The message was that Dalit-OBC could grab power. He got the support of the Kurmi community that was at loggerheads with the Yadavs. Kurmi leaders like Jang Bahadur Patel, Sone Lal Patel, Barkhu Ram Verma, and Lalji Verma joined the BSP, as did Rajbhar leaders like Sukhdev Rajbhar, Om Prakash Rajbhar, Ramachal Rajbhar. Noniya leader Dara Singh Chauhan as well as leaders from Maurya, Kushwaha, Nishad, Nai and Bind communities also came to the party fold, Kumar noted. 'Later, Sone Lal Patel launched Apna Dal and Om Prakash Rajbhar launched the SBSP, but the BSP's hold over the backward communities continued. In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP projected Narendra Modi as the backward face of the party and worked on the rainbow coalition of upper castes, OBCs and Dalits to break into the BSP's support base. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the SP played the PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) card to win over non-Yadav backward communities,' Kumar said. The shift of the OBCs towards the BJP and SP has led to the weakening of the BSP and its defeats in successive elections. To regain the lost base, the BSP leadership is now working to woo the OBCs by organising cadre camps, he added. SK Srivastava, another political analyst, recalled that Kanshi Ram launched the All-India SC, ST, OBC and Minority Employees Association (BAMCEF) in 1971 and the Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti (DS4) in 1981 to mobilise support from the SC/ST, OBC and minority communities. In 1984, he floated the BSP to grab political power. The BSP will have to win the support of OBCs to regain its lost ground in U.P, he added.
