Bans abound in India. They may spring from a prudish morality, or an excess of sensibility, a hatred of other groups or clans, a fear of the new, a ceaseless suspicion of difference and other debilitating sources. Any and everything can be banned if a cause is made stridently - sometimes violently - enough: books, films, artworks, holding hands in a park, types of meat, alcoholic drinks, love for someone from another caste, English in schools. Most of these bans are official, instituted by a government or a court or sometimes both. That is what is most unsettling about India's bans: it is a culture encouraged by the very institutions that a democratic Constitution put in place. A nation founded on the notions of freedom and equality that the Constitution upholds refuses to read a book by one of its greatest authors in English and closes its doors on one of its greatest artists who is forced to take citizenship elsewhere at the end of his life. The latest petition is for a ban on 'Santa-Banta' jokes, placed before the Supreme Court in the form of two public interest litigations. These jokes show a particular community in a poor light. Their presumably broader reach because of social media seems to have prompted the PILs, for such jokes are far from being a new phenomenon.

The Supreme Court has said that it is not the court's job to lay down moral guidelines for citizens. Even without going into the issue of jokes and humour, the court reportedly said it was not possible to give directions with regard to one community. Social and psychological problems were the domain of the legislature. The court made a point of staying within its purview, indicating that without a law, as there is against humiliating Dalits or ragging students, jokes against a community cannot be banned. The dignity of an individual depended on himself, and jokes did not violate a citizen's fundamental rights. The court's comments point towards the immaturity and uncertainty at the heart of the Indian democratic sensibility. At the same time, the institutional role in promoting the culture of bans should not be forgotten. This time too, the court referred the matter to the legislature in case of a grievance and will itself hold a hearing again.