The issue is neither your pen name nor your right to challenge Sharjeel Imam’s views. I agree that his statements in that interview are deeply anti constitutional, anti secular and highly illiberal. But the central issue is different- Do repugnant views justify prolonged incarceration and a delayed trial? Anti constitution and anti secular views are espoused by countless people cutting across the political spectrum. Yet the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights even to those who reject its values. That is precisely the strength of our constitutional democracy. You are perfectly entitled to challenge Sharjeel’s ideology and much of it deserves to be criticised. But ideological disagreement cannot become a justification for indefinite incarceration. Unlawful acts should be prosecuted but due process and personal liberty cannot be made conditional on the acceptability of someone’s political beliefs. The real test of constitutionalism is defending the rights of those whose views we find most objectionable. Otherwise our commitment is not to the Constitution but merely to our own ideological preferences.