Published: 18th Nov, 2022
Context
The Supreme Court (SC)reserved its judgment on whether free speech by public functionaries, including inter alia ministers, MLAs, MPs, should have greater restrictions than those imposed by Article 19 (2).
Background
- There has been a significant increase in hate speeches by public functionaries and referred to an incident where the President was being mocked by a minister.
- Almost 500% rise in reported Hate speech cases against politicians and public functionaries since 2014.
About
Key-points highlighted by the Bench
|
Bench:Five-Judge Constitution Bench- Justices S A Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, V Ramasubramanian and B V Nagarathna. |
- Self-restriction: People holding public office should exercise self-restriction and not blabber things which are disparaging or insulting to other countrymen.
- No need for separate code: This approach is part of our constitutional culture and there is no need for it to formulate a code of conduct for public functionaries.
- Civil remedy: There is always a civil remedy available to citizens on account of a public functionary making a speech that affects someone.
- Constitutional culture: Irrespective of what Article 19(2) may say, there is a constitutional culture in the country where there is an inherent limitation or a restriction on what people holding responsible positions say.
|
Article 19 (2) relates to the powers of the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of the country, public order, decency, morality etc. |
What does the ‘Constitutional Limitation’ means?
- The original purpose of establishing formal or constitutional limits on government was to check the arbitrary actions of hereditary monarchs or rulers who abused their power, imposed unwanted taxes, or launched unpopular wars.
- In this case it relates to the ‘duty based order’ amongst the people in higher position and a responsibility towards a welfare society.
|
Hate Speech and Law: Meaning: According to the 267thReport of the Law Commission of India, Hate Speech is stated as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the like. Important Provisions: Under the existing laws, neither hate speech has been defined, nor is there any specific provision to curb it. Police take recourse to Sections 153(A) and 295(A)to tackle it.
|
Is controlling freedom of Speech of officials against Constitutional Provision?
- No, according to the Apex Court, the Fundamental right for freedom of speech is exposed to reasonable restrictions based on ‘Public order’ and ‘Security of the Nation’.
What is the difference between hate speech and freedom of speech?
- The Indian Constitution, under Article 19(1)(a)provides the right to freedom of speech and expression.
- However, under Article 19(2),the constitution also provides for the ‘reasonable restrictions’ against free speechin the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
|
Hate speech is considered a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression. |
More Articles
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
