Inter Arma enim silent defendentis

Introduction

“Inter arma enim silent leges,” a Latin phrase attributed to Cicero, translates to “In times of war, the law falls silent.” This expression encapsulates the harsh reality that during conflicts, legal norms and human rights are often compromised in favor of military expediency. Extending this notion, “Inter arma enim silent defendentis” suggests that in such tumultuous times, the voices of those defending the law and human rights are often drowned out. This concept is not only universal but also has specific manifestations within the context of Indian law.

Historical Context

Throughout history, wartime and periods of internal conflict have been characterized by a suspension of regular legal principles. Governments often resort to extraordinary measures to maintain security and order, which can lead to the erosion of civil liberties and human rights. This tendency can be observed in various historical contexts, including India:

1. Emergency Period (1975-1977): The Indian Emergency declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi is a stark example. During this period, civil liberties were suspended, the press was censored, and political opponents were imprisoned without trial. The maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was used extensively to detain individuals without due process.
2. Anti-Terrorism Laws: Laws such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) were enacted to combat terrorism. These laws provided the government with sweeping powers to detain individuals without charge and limited the judiciary’s role in overseeing such detentions.
3. Kashmir Conflict: The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) gives the military extensive powers in “disturbed areas” like Jammu and Kashmir. This act has been criticized for enabling human rights abuses, including arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killings, with little accountability.

The Role of the Defender

In such climates, the role of those who defend civil liberties and human rights becomes both critical and challenging. Lawyers, human rights activists, and civil society organizations often find themselves in precarious positions as they navigate the delicate balance between national security and individual rights. Their voices, though crucial, are often marginalized or silenced due to the pervasive fear and urgency that characterize wartime.

1. Legal Advocates: Lawyers defending individuals accused under stringent laws like TADA, POTA, or UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) often face significant hurdles. They may contend with secret evidence, restricted access to their clients, and hostile public opinion. High-profile cases, such as those related to the Bhima Koregaon incident, highlight the difficulties faced by defense attorneys.
2. Human Rights Organizations: Groups such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Amnesty International India work tirelessly to document and protest abuses. However, their efforts can be undermined by governments that prioritize security over transparency and accountability. These organizations often struggle to gain traction in an environment where dissenting voices are easily dismissed as unpatriotic or subversive.
3. Whistleblowers: Individuals who expose governmental overreach or misconduct, such as RTI activists, often face severe repercussions, including threats, harassment, and even assassination. Their revelations are crucial for public awareness and accountability, but they pay a high personal price.

The Ethical Dilemma

The tension between security and liberty is a profound ethical dilemma. On one hand, protecting a nation’s security is paramount, especially when facing existential threats. On the other hand, the erosion of civil liberties can lead to a slippery slope where temporary measures become permanent, and exceptional practices become the norm.

1. 1. Proportionality and Necessity: Legal and ethical frameworks suggest that any suspension of rights should be proportional to the threat and necessary to address it. However, determining what is proportional and necessary is often subjective and influenced by the prevailing political climate.
   2. Transparency and Accountability: Governments should strive for transparency and accountability, even in wartime. Ensuring that actions taken in the name of security are subject to oversight can help prevent abuses and maintain public trust.
   3. The Role of the Judiciary: An independent judiciary is crucial in times of war and conflict. Courts must be vigilant in upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights, even under pressure from the executive branch. In India, landmark judgments like the Habeas Corpus case (ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla) during the Emergency and the recent right to privacy judgment underscore the judiciary’s role in safeguarding civil liberties.

Case Law and Its Application

ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976): Often referred to as the Habeas Corpus case, this Supreme Court judgment is a significant example of how wartime pressures can influence judicial decisions. During the Emergency, the court controversially ruled that the right to habeas corpus (a fundamental right to challenge unlawful detention) could be suspended. This decision was widely criticized for undermining civil liberties and the rule of law. It highlighted the judiciary’s struggle to balance state security with individual rights. In a later decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged the errors of this judgment, reinforcing the importance of judicial independence and the protection of fundamental rights.

Recent Applications:

• K. S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017): This landmark Supreme Court judgment recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This case has significant implications for laws and measures taken in the name of national security, ensuring that such measures must respect individual privacy and adhere to constitutional principles.
• Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India (2020): In the context of the Kashmir lockdown and internet suspension, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech and expression through the internet is a fundamental right. The court emphasized the need for proportionality and reasonableness in restricting such rights, particularly in conflict situations.

Conclusion

“Inter arma enim silent defendentis” serves as a sobering reminder of the challenges faced by defenders of the law and human rights during wartime and periods of internal conflict. While the necessity of certain security measures cannot be ignored, it is equally important to ensure that these measures do not permanently undermine the principles of justice and liberty. Balancing security with civil liberties is a complex but essential task, requiring vigilance, courage, and a steadfast commitment to the rule of law. In India, as elsewhere, the voices of defenders must be amplified, not silenced, to preserve the democratic fabric of society. The judiciary, legal advocates, and human rights organizations play crucial roles in this balance, ensuring that the rule of law prevails even in the most challenging times.

Also Read: 
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India