FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Free speech is an essential feature of democracy. A nation that allows its citizen the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expressions’ can only be regarded a progressive nation in true sense. Speech, verbal and non-verbal, plays an important role in dissemination of ideas, beliefs, concepts and doctrines and often initiates a person into action on the expressed views. Existence of multiple opinions in a plural society is indicative of growth and peaceful co-existence and a society which encourages difference of opinion is capable of building a strong nation, defined in the following verse of the poet Rabindranath Tagore:

“Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way

into the dreary desert sand of dead habit

where the mind is led forward by thee

into ever-widening thought and action

into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.”

Freedom of speech and expression is a double edged sword which may benefit the society if used in right context. However, on the other hand its sharp edge can also create a wide rift within a society that may even lead to disintegration of a nation if it crosses the line of decency and becomes a hate speech aimed at a particular segment of the society- a race, believers of a particular religion or an ethnic group. It entirely depends upon the intelligence and social and educational upbringing of the person. An enlightened society may use it effectively but the same may not be true for every society and nation. The extent of freedom of speech and expression granted to people varies from nation to nation.

This depends on the level of enlightenment of a society and a nation. Thus, while America allows the right to freedom of speech and expressions in the widest terms the same may not be true for Latin American or African nations. Hence, reasonable restrictions need to be imposed.

In recent times, efforts have also been made in India to minimize the scope of ‘hate speech’ and allow people greater freedom of speech and expression. Debate has been initiated in India to review the provisions such as Sections 153A, 153B, 295A and 505 of IPC that restricts freedom of speech and expressions in the name of hate speech and have a more liberal approach as in United States of America. Supreme Court of India has been petitioned for the purpose. Senior Advocate K. T. S. Tulsi who represented Dr. Subramanian Swamy against the decision of the Delhi Government to prosecute Swamy under these Sections of IPC feels that “the same may require permission from the Centre since one of the IPC Sections has national ramification.”

The Supreme Court has taken contradictory stand while hearing cases on two different cases. In April 2013 the bench of then Chief Justice Altamas Kabir issued a notice to the central government on a petition seeking to frame guidelines to curb elected representatives from delivering hate speeches in pursuance of their political goals. The notice was also issued to the Election Commission of India, and the Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh governments. The public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by the voluntary organization Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan.

However, the Supreme Court in March 2014 dismissed a PIL filed by Advocate M. L. Sharma seeking intervention by the court in directing the Election Commission to curb hate speeches. Dismissing the plea, the Apex court said that it could not curb the fundamental right of the people to express themselves. Thus the debate on efficacy and effectivity of these Sections of IPC may be a long drawn process before a decision can be taken with regard to keeping or setting aside these Sections of IPC.

Right to freedom of speech and expression which is symbolic of individual autonomy needs to be weighted down in the backdrop of larger societal good and national interest that such speech or expression may lead to. It is therefore imperative to understand when does offensive speech shade into hate speech? Often, such speech and expressions are meant for personal gains and have nothing to do with social good. In such cases the State should intervene for the sake of peace and harmony in society. In the present time when a speech gets rapidly disseminated due to internet, the need for caution increases so that pluralism is respected and dignity of every single citizen is protected. People, especially on social media will have to brace themselves to handle communication that is increasingly disturbing and offensive with restrain and maturity.

At the same time the State needs to counter hate speech through reason instead of regulation. Right to Freedom of Speech and Expressions does not extend the right to advocacy of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, or that may lead to “incitement with the purpose to cause harm”. As the Indian democracy becomes more robust, there have been an increase in speeches which may lead to controversy, consternation and conflict, but nevertheless such speech must never cross the borderline of public decorum which becomes the humble duty of every citizen. If we forget this duty, it becomes the duty of the State to intervene. In order to maintain the integrity of its constitutional system along with harmony in society, it is the ordained duty of the Government and the society to protect both- equality and the freedom of expression as much as to not remain speechless against hate speech.