The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary– June 7, 2021; Day 78

Today we have collated the 10 tricky words/phrases/terms from the editorial on Supreme Court relief to journalists. Go through these words and see how many did you know already. Check their usage as well. This will surely help you to understand the sense the tricky words have conveyed in the editorial.

Difficult Word/ Phrase	Contextual Sense
Strident	loud and harsh
Archaic	very old
Colonial	involving a period of political control by a more powerful country
Intemperate	having or showing a lack of self-control
Incumbent	necessary for (someone) as a duty or responsibility
Quash	reject or void, especially by legal procedure
Invoke	cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument
Narrow down	reducing the number of possibilities
Disapprobation	strong disapproval, typically on moral grounds
Connote	(of a word) imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning

Media and sedition: On Supreme Court relief to journalists

The Supreme Court’s rulings on cases of sedition give hope the law will be re-examined

It has long been recognised that strident (loud and harsh) criticism of government will not amount to an attempt to excite disaffection and disloyalty towards government. Yet, the archaic (very old) and colonial (involving a period of political control by a more powerful country) view that an intemperate (having or showing a lack of self-control) attack on an incumbent (necessary for (someone) as a duty or responsibility) ruler should be met with fierce prosecution for sedition prevails among many in power even today. In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has quashed (reject or void, especially by legal procedure) a criminal case registered in Himachal Pradesh against journalist Vinod Dua by invoking (cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument) the narrowed-down (reducing the number of possibilities) meaning of what constitutes an offence under Section 124A of the IPC, the provision for sedition, set out in Kedar Nath Singh (1962). Every journalist, the Court has ruled, is entitled to the protection of that judgment, which said “comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation (strong disapproval, typically on moral grounds) of actions of the Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal”. The law on sedition has come a long way from the formulation of British-era judges Comer Petheram and Arthur Strachey that “feelings of disaffection” towards the government connote ((of a word) imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning) “absence of affection… hatred, enmity, dislike, hostility… and every form of ill-will towards the government” to the more rational reading that only a pernicious tendency to create public disorder would be an offence. Yet, it appears that every generation needs a judicial iteration of this principle, and that is because of two reasons: that Section 124A remains on the statute book and that powerful political figures and their minions are unable to take criticism in their stride.

Enacted to put down journalistic criticism of the colonial administration from an increasingly vocal press, Section 124A is essentially a provision which seeks to protect the government’s institutional vanity from disapprobation using the interests of public order and security of the state as a fig leaf. It has often been criticised for being vague and “overbroad”. Its use of terms such as “bringing (government) into hatred or contempt” and “disloyalty and all feelings of enmity” continues to help the police to invoke it whenever there is either strong criticism or critical depiction of unresponsive or insensitive rulers. The explanation that disapproval of government actions or measures with a view to altering them by lawful means will not amount to an offence is not enough to restrain the authorities from prosecution. The mischief lies in the latitude given to the police by an insecure political leadership to come down on the government’s adversaries. It is unfortunate that the Bench did not go into the aspect of political motivation behind the police registering FIRs without checking if the required ingredient of incitement to violence is present. The Court’s verdict brightens the hope that the section’s validity will be re-examined. For now, it is a blow for free speech and media freedom.

Hope you got to know some new words/phrases which will definitely be useful in the English section of upcoming competitive exams. Wishing you all the best in your preparation!

Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.