FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN THE INDIAN SCENARIO

 India was and remains a land where multiplicity of religions, ideologies and faith systems have thrived and flourished from time immemorial. Free speech, fair criticisms and arguments are not new to public discourse of this ancient civilization. Article 19 of the constitution which enshrines the principle of free speech and expression has been invoked several times in the period spanning the decades from independence for the most trivial things to the greatest of milestones our country has witnessed.

 The historical and cultural moorings of the country are evidence enough to support this. Freedom of speech and expression as a fundamental right has remained intact and untouched for all the years from independence except during emergency when it was struck down by the then government of India. The number of publications that were banned, people jailed and thereby the intellectual freedom of the vast multitude of people that were curbed remains afresh in the memory of Indians. Fortunately so, the country has not witnessed a constitutional violation of this right since then.

As one may know, no judiciary in the world gives a free pass to freedom of speech and expression. Reasonable restrictions are imposed almost everywhere like in India. These are contained in article 19 (2) of the constitution. Here, the duty to not provide biased, factually wrong and unverified information is vested upon the media in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the country and security of the state. These were brought about through the first amendment in 1951.

It has been a little over five years or so since freedom of speech and expression has started occupying our lexicon. From numerous cases of the same being discussed and debated about, more than focusing on whether freedom of speech and expression is being curbed in certain regimes, the fundamental question to be raised is, whether freedom of speech and expression is absolute.

Because so long as India continues to be a democracy, inestimable versions of people exercising their right to free speech and certain sections of the population actively criticizing it could be seen. The Prashant Bhushan case, the recent debate around supporting opposing countries in sporting events is a few among the many examples of this. And we have seen the law taking its due course in these events.
Expressions of freedom of speech and the attempt to curb it have remained in all regimes. However, such events finding more gravity and magnitude than ever before is a result of blinkered vision.
True that articulate expression of one’s point of view is valid but outrage motivated by malice and without articulation and contemplation is fundamentally impotent.  Therefore one should have a degree of responsibility while leveling an allegation against the judiciary, which affects its integrity or publishing a dehumanizing statement against a community. 

While dissent is important for the healthy functioning of our democracy what is equally sacrosanct is the right to dissent the dissent.

 The fundamental thing is however that we have to stop exaggerating the India that we live in as a nation where dissent and fair criticism are curbed just because freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. If it was absolute, it would give a free pass to fringe elements, to hijack the discourse of our national agenda.  Sure we need to improve our system, maybe start looking afresh at some of the associated provisions, but it shouldn’t lead to the moulding of a state where wishfulness triumphs over prudence.