Judiciary and Free Speech in India

 Indian courts today are seen as managing free speech rather than defending it, leading to a retreat from the principle enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which upholds speech as a shield against tyranny. The judiciary increasingly appears as an arbiter of decorum, demanding apologies for speech in the name of civility, sensitivity, or national pride. 

Examples of Judicial Approach

• Social Media Post Incident:
  • A man criticized Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a social media post.
  • The Allahabad High Court rejected a plea to quash the FIR against him, emphasizing the need to protect constitutional authorities from disrepute.
• Kamal Haasan Controversy:
  • The actor's remark about Kannada being a daughter of Tamil led to a controversy.
  • The Karnataka High Court advised him to apologize to the public, setting a precedent that lawful speech must pass a popularity test.
• Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia Case:
  • A court confronted him for using explicit language in a podcast.
  • The focus was on prevailing norms of taste and modesty rather than incitement to harm.

Emerging Patterns

• Speech provoking emotional reactions is increasingly being equated with legally actionable harm.
• By encouraging apologies and moral policing, courts create an incentive for outrage and litigation, not protection.

Impact on Cases Involving Armed Forces

 Recent judgments like denying relief to Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case show that freedom of speech is being constrained when it involves state institutions. The use of laws meant for sedition-like scenarios is being extended to sarcasm and satire. 

Call for Principle-Centric Speech Protection

• Courts should focus on whether a speaker's right was violated, not on hurt sentiments.
• Apologies should be personal choices, not judicial recommendations.
• Courts must lean toward liberty, especially with vague laws like sedition and public order clauses.

Conclusion

 Democracies thrive on disagreement, not agreeable speech. The judiciary should protect the right to speak rather than the comfort of the listener. To preserve India's democratic soul, dissent must be dignified and speech should not need blessings for legitimacy.