“Now is the time to educate our police machinery about the concept of freedom of speech,”: the Supreme Court said.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the paramount importance of the right to dissent, asserting that criticizing government actions is not tantamount to an offense. The court emphasized that democracy hinges on the freedom to express dissenting views. Furthermore, the court called for heightened awareness among law enforcement agencies regarding the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, particularly in light of a case involving adverse remarks on the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
Quoting Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the court underscored,
“The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Under the said guarantee, every citizen has the right to offer criticism of the action of abrogation of Article 370 or, for that matter, every decision of the State. He has the right to say he is unhappy with any decision of the State.”
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, stressed the urgent need to enlighten law enforcement officials about the constitutional provisions safeguarding freedom of speech and expression. They highlighted the necessity of comprehending the boundaries of reasonable restraint while upholding democratic values enshrined in the Constitution.
Justice Oka and Justice Bhuyan stated,
“Now is the time to educate our police machinery about the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the limits of reasonable restraint on them… They should be sensitized about the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution.”
The court’s directive underscores the imperative of ensuring that law enforcement personnel understand and respect citizens’ rights to express dissent, thereby fostering a culture of robust democratic discourse.
A legal action was initiated against Jammu and Kashmir, a Kashmiri professor employed at Maharashtra’s Kolhapur College, due to a WhatsApp status where he referred to August 5 as a
“Black Day for Jammu and Kashmir”
and expressed felicitations for Pakistan’s Independence Day on August 14. However, the court intervened, ruling to dismiss the case against him.
The court interpreted the designation of August 5 as a “Black day” as an “expression of protest and pain.” Conversely, extending greetings to the people of Pakistan on their Independence Day was deemed a “goodwill gesture” that did not foster animosity among religious groups, as stated by the judges.
In assessing such cases, the court emphasized that the impact of statements should be evaluated based on their effect on reasonable individuals, rather than on those who may interpret them negatively due to hypersensitivity. The court emphasized that the mere development of hatred or ill will among certain individuals does not warrant legal action for inciting hostility between groups.
Furthermore, the court underscored the importance of legal avenues as integral components of the right to a dignified and meaningful life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.
However, the court also issued a caveat, asserting that opposition or disagreement must conform to the permissible methods within a democratic system. This underscores the importance of exercising dissent within the framework of lawful and democratic principles.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of Supreme Court of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
