Article / Law

Reasonable Restrictions on Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is an inalienable right of a person which he has from his birth till death, and without that he will be nothing more than just a slave.

AUTHOR: Mohit Kesharwani and Ayush Gupta [LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN]

“How will a bird fly, if its wings are cut off”?

Similarly, the freedom of speech works as wings in the life of a human being through which he has the liberty to put up his ideas, thoughts, opinions as well as criticism without any kind of fear.

The basic question is up to what extent this right should be implemented, some scholars say that it should be guaranteed to the people at any cost for securing the transparency in the nation while some believe that it is misused for saying anything (including abusing thing) without reprimand?

To answer this question, it is not wrong to say that Freedom of speech is an inalienable right of a person which he has from his birth till death, and without that he will be nothing more than just a slave. Right to Freedom of speech and expression of the people in the country is apparently a sign of true democracy in the world. But, now in this contemporary world democracy is only used as a mask, and behind that the countries follow the ideology of communism or capitalism. In this era of the 21^st century, every country tries to incline the interest of their citizens in national interest without taking concern of its consequence. And when these types of activities prevail in the country somewhere the offshoots of revolution start growing.

The provision for freedom of speech and expression provided by The Constitution of India is looks like a mere collection of few words on the paper, because in this contemporary period it can be easily seen in the country, that the voice of those who criticize the government policies are been suppressed by the government, whereas in a democratic country government of that country is accountable and answerable to its citizen.

The effective use of human resources can only be done when the state considers the interest of its citizens. And the best way to determine the interest of the people of a particular state-nation is to give them the right of participation in the formulation of laws and policies, by which they must feel free to raise their point regarding any matter in the public domain irrespective of the fact that it’s in favor or against the government. Because an individual is like a flower that blooms when the soil is fertile, the sun is gentle, the water is adequate, and the care is regular.

Hence, a general definition of freedom can be referred to as “It represents the desire of people to be in control of their own lives and destinies and to have the opportunity to express themselves freely through their choices and activities”.

As in the words of Mr. Herbert Hoover, “Freedom is the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity”.

The right of speech and expression doesn’t exists in isolation but it also consists many other rights in itself such as –

1. It consists of commercial and artistic speech.
2. It also includes the right to print, publish, communicate and advertise the ideas, opinions as well as information.
3. The freedom of press is also a crucial part of this right.
4. The SC ordered that the right to speech is an adjunct to right to life (Article 21).

SIGNIFICANCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION 

1. The foremost significance is that democracy can only be achieved in a nation when its citizens can freely speak, communicate, and promote their thoughts without any interference.
2. In the absence of this right, there is a possibility that the government will become unaccountable of his policies & acts, and pursue their self-interest over the interest of the nation and its peoples. 
3. Another striking benefit of this freedom is to help poor and vulnerable people in the country, because it is very hard for them to raise their voice against injustice in comparison to rich sections of society.
4. It plays a very important role in maintaining the check and balance in the administration & society, as the press can freely out rightly publish the news against any corruption, crimes and other violence.
5. This type of right assists the citizens of a country in their research, innovation, and bringing advancement in different sectors of the economy, as they have liberty of thoughts, expressions, beliefs, faith and worship.
6. In an observation made by the second CJI of India Hon’ble Mr. M Patanjali held that, “Freedom of Speech and of the Press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of Government, is possible”[1].

REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS 

It is not possible for an individual to live in a world where there are no restrictions, we need some constraints or else the society would descend into chaos. Every state needs some mechanism to control violence and settle disputes. There are numerous grounds on which this inalienable right of citizen is restricted, some of them were mentioned below –

1. To protect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation (added in the constitution by sixteen amendments, 1963) which serves to cease a person from making statements that infringe the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
2. Restrictions can be imposed on a person if they exceed the fair and reasonable limit of criticism, and it comes under the ambit of contempt of court. Both civil and criminal proceedings u\s 10 of contempt of court can be started.
3. The (First Amendment) Act, 1951 clarifies that this right cannot be exercised by persons for the purpose of damaging or disturbing any foreign relations of India with some other Nations.
4. The foremost restriction on this freedom is imposed for the purpose of maintaining the security of the state. It prevents the state in times of waging war, aggravated forms of public disturbance and rebellion.
5. This right is not absolute as a restriction is imposed by clause (2) of article 19 to stop a person from making any foul or defamatory statements which injures another’s reputation. Because the reputation of any person is protected under article 21 of Indian Constitution.

Therefore, as also mentioned by JOHN STUART MILL that “the only purpose for which the power can be rightfully exercised by the state over any member of a civilized community, against his/her will, is to prevent harm to others members of society”. 

SEDITION LAW: A WEAPON TO SUPPRESS 

The offence of sedition is defined under section 124A of I.P.C (Indian Penal Code), and it restrict citizens from raising their opinion whether in spoken, written, signs and verbal representations against the government established by law, in order to prevent the hatred, contempt, and people’s dissatisfaction towards the government. This law was introduced in the year 1870 into IPC to suppress the voices of the people who demanded complete freedom from British rule. 

Then, the questions arise: do we really need such laws in the country in the 75^th year of independence?

Recently, Hon’ble CJI of India while giving a serious concern to this section observed that “The use of sedition is like giving a saw to a carpenter to cut a piece of wood and he uses it to cut the entire forest itself”. He further mentions that this law was previously used to suppress the voice against the British crown, and it is active till now to crush the liberties of citizens. The history of this law apparently shows that the conviction rate is very low, and this power is misused by executive agencies. This law is now contradicting with the Voltaire’s statement that – “I disapprove of what you say but, I will defend to death your right to say it”.

INTERPRETATION AND IT’S AMBIT

In the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar[2] The SC held that “a citizen has a right to say whatever he likes about the government, or its policies by the means of comment or criticism, but it should not exceed the limit and incites the people against the government. 

In case of P. Alavi Vs. State of Kerala[3] The Supreme Court held that sloganeering and criticizing parliament or the judicial set up does not amount to sedition.

In the case of Balwant Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab[4] The SC held that raising some slogan (Khalistan Zindabad) a couple of times, which neither evoked any response or any reaction from the public cannot come under the ambit of sedition and will not attract its punishment.

Recently, A NGO of Delhi PUCL [5] (Public Union for Civil Liberties) moved SC challenging the constitutional validity of the offence of sedition under section 124A of IPC. The plea stated that terms like ‘disloyalty’, ‘disapprobation’, and ‘disaffection’ are used to define sedition are vague and therefore makes the provision void. It was also argued that the impugned provision is ‘anachronistic’ and it had lost all its relevance in a free democratic country. And in this context, it is submitted that it is nothing but a “Political Crime”.

WAY FORWARD

1. Active Interference of Judiciary – It is the need of the hour, that the judiciary should actively intervene in the matter by using its commanding power and should refine this constitutional provision by directing all the senior authority.
2. Remove the Arbitrariness – Article 19(2) apparently shows that these restrictions are reasonable in nature. So, the motive of this limitation is to prevent the person from disturbing the public order and it should be limited to that purpose only.
3. Need to Remove the Sedition Law – This anachronistic law should be repealed from the constitution because it serves only as a tool to crush the voice of citizens which rises against the government.
4. Media Regulatory Framework–It is not only the duty of media but also of people to regulate and promote only that news which will or ought to be true. Because fake news spreads much faster than the fire in the forest of dry woods and leaves.

CONCLUSION

India is a democratic country and its constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to every single person which they can enforce from an independent judicial system. So, there was a necessity to maintain equilibrium between these fundamental rights and collective security of state or nation. This work alone cannot be executed by the government but it also requires some efforts from those who are exercising these rights. Finally, we would like to conclude by mentioning a quote given by the world’s great scientist Albert Einstein who says, “Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1.  Npardhan, Constitution of India-freedom of speech and expression ,  http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-572.
2.  1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769
3.  Crl.M.C. No. 689 of 1981.
4.  Appeal (Crl.) 266 of 1985.
5.  LIVE LAW, https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/pucl-moves-supreme-court-against-sedition-law-section-124a-ipc-177569, (last visited: 25 july,2021).

FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT OUR SITE