Freedom of Speech: Navigating Boundaries in Democracy
The right to freedom of expression is essential, yet it has its boundaries. This right should not be exploited to incite violence, slander others, or offend religious beliefs. The primary challenge in a democracy is maintaining equilibrium. While safeguarding freedom of expression, it is crucial to address language and speeches that promote violence, vulgarity, or obscenity. The Supreme Court has said in two cases that the right to freedom of expression is being misused online. On the petition filed by cartoonist Hemant Malviya, the bench of the apex court strongly objected to the cartoons and remarked that if one wants to enjoy the fundamental right to expression, it should be with appropriate restrictions. While hearing the petition of Wajahat Khan to club together the cases registered in different states for objectionable posts against Hindu deities, a separate bench of the Supreme Court remarked that citizens should know the value of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. People should exercise restraint in their comments. The apex court has also said that it does not want any kind of censorship. The bench has asked the states and the Centre to suggest ways in which hate speeches can be controlled without harming freedom of expression.
Citizens themselves should know that if they violate the Laxman Rekha, the state will intervene. However, no one wants the state to intervene. Maintaining the unity and integrity of the country is one of the fundamental duties. At least divisive tendencies should be curbed on social media. Citizens themselves should exercise restraint so that brotherhood remains in the society. It is also a reality that state governments have tried to suppress the youth by misusing the laws.
The biggest beauty of democracy in any country is that there are no restrictions on expressing different thoughts or opinions, which can be seen as suppression of expression. An ideologically strong and mature society is so rich at the level of its conscience that it can see the human values and context in a far-reaching perspective in any idea. The irony is that the difference of opinion on the basis of which the dream of a healthy society can be realized, is often questioned and attempts are made to suppress it in this way.
It is worth noting that a case was registered against Rajya Sabha MP Imran Pratapgarhi in Jamnagar, Gujarat for posting an edited video with a provocative song on social media. The allegation was that the lyrics of the song are provocative, harmful to national unity and hurt religious sentiments. After hearing the case, quashing the FIR lodged over the alleged 'provocative' poem, the court said that literature, which includes poetry and drama, films, stage programs like stand-up comedy, satire and art, make life more meaningful. The Information Technology Act was implemented in the beginning of the 21st century (2000) during the NDA regime. Eight years later (in 2008), UPA-2 amended it and included Section 66-A, the notification of which was issued in February 2009. Be it professors or cartoonists, girls or writers, businessmen or employees, teenagers or adults, all came under the grip of Section 66-A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2008. 21 petitions were filed against this section, the first of which was filed by law student Shreya Singhal in the Supreme Court in 2012. This section was imposed against two girls (Shaheen Hada and Reenu Srinivasan) from Palghar, Maharashtra, for posting on Facebook against the Mumbai bandh after the death of Bal Thackeray. Shreya Singhal had challenged this section. On March 24, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J. Chelameswar and RF Nariman, in its judgment on all the PILs related to this, declared freedom of expression as a fundamental value and repealed this section. In the order, three words of Section 66-A – ‘irritating’, ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘extremely insulting’ were termed vague. Even after 78 years of our republic, we cannot appear so weak that just a performance of a poem, art or any form of entertainment can be accused of creating enmity or hatred between communities. Obviously, the kind of circumstances created to restrict expression, the kind of challenges being seen in the last few years, will ultimately prove to be harmful for democracy in the country.
It is important to note that any democracy becomes stronger only when there is enough space for tolerance among different communities towards different views. Anyway, the Constitution provides the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. Especially the intellectual society often resorts to different creative forms to express support or opposition to an idea within its sphere. In that, there can also be a critical voice within the scope of freedom granted under the law and the Constitution, which in some way or the other strengthens the democratic values in the country. In a democracy, all parties will have to use the freedom of expression by staying within their limits, only then will harmony prevail in the society.