High Court Verdict in Manik Sarkar Case Curbs Freedom of Speech and Expression, Says Purushottam Roy Barman

By Our Correspondent

Agartala, October 16, 2026

Renowned lawyer and human rights activist Purushottam Roy Barman has criticised the Tripura High Court’s decision to reject former Chief Minister Manik Sarkar’s plea seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him, stating that the verdict has curtailed the fundamental rights of freedom of speech, expression and peaceful democratic protest.

According to Roy Barman, the High Court rejected Sarkar’s plea on August 13. He said he had obtained a copy of the judgment and believed that the decision raised serious questions about citizens’ constitutional rights and the responsibility of the judiciary to protect democratic freedoms.

The case relates to remarks made by Manik Sarkar concerning a possible mass movement over land-related issues in Tripura. The allegations against him reportedly included provoking people, disturbing public order and attempting to disrupt peace and tranquillity. The FIR was challenged before the High Court, with a plea seeking its cancellation.

Roy Barman argued that calling for a democratic movement or encouraging people to participate in a mass agitation should not automatically be treated as an act of violence or an attempt to disturb public order. He maintained that citizens have the constitutional right to express their opinions and participate in peaceful democratic movements.

Criticising the High Court’s decision, Roy Barman said he did not agree with the reasoning and observations contained in the judgment. In his view, the ruling could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and the right to organise peaceful protests if it is interpreted as restricting political leaders and ordinary citizens from expressing their views on public issues.

He further argued that the responsibility of the judiciary is to safeguard constitutional freedoms, including the right to dissent and participate in democratic movements. If people face legal action merely for making political statements or calling for peaceful agitation, it could discourage citizens from exercising their democratic rights, he suggested.

Roy Barman also questioned the broader implications of the allegations concerning inflammatory speeches. He pointed out that public statements must be assessed in their proper context and distinguished from speeches that actually incite violence or promote hostility against a community. He referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the constitutional responsibility to prevent communal hatred while protecting legitimate political expression.

He alleged that political leaders, including those associated with the BJP and communal organisations, have also made controversial statements, and referred to allegations of hate speech against the Prime Minister. His argument was that the law should be applied consistently and that democratic freedoms should not be restricted selectively.

Roy Barman expressed the view that the High Court’s judgment should be challenged before the Supreme Court. He said he believed the Supreme Court could consider such a challenge and examine whether the ruling had unduly restricted the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

more news...