- At the outset, as Indians, let us vouch in unison that the Constitution framed by our forefathers soon after gaining independence has been a bedrock of plurality, inclusiveness, secular, and irrespective of caste, creed, class, ethnicity, linguistics, and other parochial considerations coming in the way of exercising their guaranteed rights. As the custodian of the Constitution, the higher judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has held fort vis-à-vis interpreting as well as exercising the authority accruing to safeguard the tenets of the same. So much so that the Indian citizens will knock on the hallowed portals of the Supreme Court as a last resort, knowing fully well that their grievances will be heard and relief/justice delivered.
PC: Telegraph India
- However, with the advent of polarization in the Indian society of late, where communal versus secular narration has established a deep-rooted existence within the political firmament, the task of the Supreme Court has increased manifold in addressing the violation of rights as guaranteed. One of the most often heard narratives in the present times is the controversy surrounding free speech. The political class has been overreactive on matters that they deem counterproductive for their efforts to reign in authoritatively/extrajudiciously. The resultant outcome is the usual claims like religious sentiments being hurt, targeting one community, division of the country for parochial considerations, and some such statements emanating from the political class.
PC: Alexander Academy
- The moot point to ponder here is who’s respecting free speech when cops file a defamation case after a comedy riff on a leader. When the going gets funny, the funny get going, goes a stand-up comic witticism. Of course, politics is always fertile material for comics. In open democracies across the globe, people are laughing at their public servants. But many, or almost all, of our politicians are extra touchy when the joke’s on them, especially when a comic riff on them has audiences guffawing extra loud. Assume that someone thinks a comedian’s latest jokes are not funny but absolute rubbish. The point is that Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution guarantees all citizens freedom of speech and expression, with reasonable restrictions.
PC: IAS NEXT
Yes, subjective and open to several interpretations suitable to each political party and the leaders concerned. Expressing disagreements with speech via speech is the bedrock of modern society. The understanding and expectation that disagreement expressed via violence will be punished by state institutions is the bedrock of lawful coexistence. Cops are filing criminal defamation cases against standup comedians under the pretext of public mischief. Why so? That should be the business of persons who feel wrongly targeted. And if third persons find the jokes offensive, why should cops carry their cudgels? Worryingly, why only cops, even courts sometimes seem to side less with the spirit of the Constitution’s free speech protection. This narrative should change/stop.
(a).){kind=link}