As the constituent assembly sat down after independence to create a constitution that would be the foundational brick of a golden age India, it penned down a masterpiece of a constitution. Even after 71 years of its origin, the provisions of Indian constitution are competent enough to deal with current as well as future problems that a democratic country, like ours, might face. Not only does the holy book of Indian democracy maintains the dignity of our country but it also makes sure that it stands by the idea with which it was conceived—By the people, for the people, of the people. It bestows upon its citizens various rights and remedies so as to allow their participation in decision making and gives as much power to them as one should have in their own home. One such important right is the right to speech and expression.
Under article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, each citizen of this country has the right to speech and expression. Within the territory of this country, every individual has the right to hold any thought and voice his/her opinion or oppose any views that they feel is wrong. A citizen, under this right, can oppose the government and point out the loopholes in any legislation and participate in making of this country, just like how the forefathers of our country dreamed it to be.
But in the light of the recent events it has been fairly visible how this right has been misinterpreted by both the parties— the one in favor has interpreted it to be vastly unlimited and the one in opposition believe it to be too open, senseless and worth restricting. So what is the scenario right now? Which party involved in this discussion is correct? Should there be a Laxman Rekha or not? We need to look at both the sides before residing with either of them.
“Freedom of speech without responsibility of thinking, is not just useless but ‘Hazardous’”
In past few years, the social media has grown. Almost everyone with a smartphone and a social media account is present like an omnipotent virtual creature with a sense of authority and entitlement with respect to their opinion. The social media, now a microphone, gives everyone not just the illusion that they have a right to have an unchecked and misinformed opinion but also that their opinion should be concrete in order to be heard.
Every person with internet seems to be aware about their right to speak and express but how many of them are aware about the responsibility that comes with it?
Recently, as our country went through an immense turmoil and tension, the misinformed and unchecked opinions added to it the way petrol adds to fire. The amount of fake news, anger tainted emotional appeals, and biased views led to many peaceful protests getting turned into violent riots. And not just the social media but also the media was pretty vocal about misunderstood views and speeches which added up to the destruction that ensued. Even currently, the news channels are working day and night to influence the people’s opinion in a biased manner and therefore creating a chaos. The misuse of this right is most prevalent in political and religious matters. The speeches and slogans, most of the times, are laced with defamatory phrases against the opposing party or community. From using fake information to incite upheaval to screaming obscene words and phrases to disgrace opposition and even at times the country and its freedom fighters as well— The political leaders, public figures and religious heads often forget that words have consequences.
This belief that the freedom under article 19(1)(a) is unlimited and can be exercised without any consequences has tarnished the good faith with which this freedom was granted. More than a power that backs up a citizen having a different view, this right is being used as an excuse— excuse against violation of several rights of others. It has become an unreasonable ground on which a person can violate other person’s dignity, create unrest in the society and more over constantly keep up the havoc in every one’s mind.
In Indian law there are few mentioned restrictions to this right. These restrictions condemn any word or speech which harms,
· Security of the state
· Friendly relations with foreign states
· Public order
· Decency and morality
· Contempt of court
· Defamation
· Incitement to an offence, and
· Sovereignty and integrity of India
It is quite astounding to see how the many netizens, the media and public figures are so vocal when demanding a right while their shouts are reduced to hushes when talking about a limit.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” —George Orwell
But then when we talk about limitations, we must also keep in mind that limitations must only draw a line which mustn’t be crossed and not act as a tool to eradicate a right.
In his book, "1984", author George Orwell described what a dystopia looks like. Written in a time when totalitarianism was on the rise, this book narrates the catastrophic conditions of citizens in a place where everyone, under the aforementioned regime, were deprived of their basic rights as a citizen of a country and one such horrible mention is of how anyone who spoke against the party (the government) was annihilated or in more fictitious terms was vaporized.
In current scenario, though not vaporized, anyone who holds any opinion which opposes the acts of a government and speaks out is sometimes shot, harassed or in ‘playing by the rules’ manner thrown into a prison. If one can make out the similarities between the reality and a fictional dystopia, they’d be very scared about what is to come. Before India was hit by the pandemic, the atrocious treatment with the anti-CAA protesters shook the nation. From calling the protesters as anti-national to painting police brutality in the color of ‘reasonable requirement’.
The widespread increase in the number of political prisoners, especially the arrests of young students and journalists, and the abuse of the loophole-riddled sections of UAPA has threatened the existence of our right to express. It seems at times that the intolerance towards an opposing idea has gone from ignoring such ideas to punishing people for holding such ideas; it seems to be a daring act now to hold an opinion that is incongruent to that of the majority or the opinion of a person whom the majority worships. But isn’t this against the fiber of democracy? Will the democracy survive when the right to speak and express is brutally crushed?
A limitation must be imposed so as to protect the sanctity and the bona fide intent behind a given right. But if by a limitation the authorities signify that they demand complete and blind obedience in the name of respect towards itself then it isn’t talking about limitation rather it is asking for something that will suffocate our right to speak and express and in furtherance hammer our democracy.
There must be a balance
According to the principles of Jurisprudence, there must be a balance. The set restrictions, the Laxman Rekha, must be concrete enough to create a necessary boundary which will protect against the misuse of this freedom but this boundary must be made in a manner that there is enough room for people to have their legitimate say.
As citizens, you cannot sit back and complain about things going wrong when your own house is on fire. Patriotism isn’t just about standing up during the national anthem, it is about having your country’s back when it needs you. It is necessary to know when to speak and when not to but it is equally necessary to speak up for all the abuses your country is going through no matter what others think.
Think. Always think before you speak. Think and realize that you need to speak when the time demands. Think before you speak for sure, but speak even if it is an act of revolt. Speak and create a revolution, if revolution is required, to protect your freedom to say it.