This article has been written by Ms. Shruti Medhekar, a 4th year BA.LLB student of Keshav Memorial College of Law.
Constitution of India which is known to be the longest constitution is also known to provide its citizens with six fundamental rights which further provides remedy to the citizens if there is any violation of these rights. One of such fundamental rights given under Article 19(1) (a) which states as follows:
All citizens shall have the right “to Freedom of Speech and Expression.”
It states that “all the citizens of India shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to the reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(2).” The main intent of right given under article 19(1) (a) is to provide the citizens of India the idea and path to express their thoughts and views freely without any restriction and hesitation. Further this right is also supported by mention of the term democratic in the preamble of the constitution. It conveys that India being a democratic country runs a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation and further the official too.
In exercise of this right few things are expressly mentioned and are to be followed which includes: this right is provided only to the citizens of India but not to the citizens of any other country, this freedom of speech and expression can be expressed in different forms of words, mouthing, letter, inscription, films etc.
Further as said above the right is pertained to few restrictions, it is likely a conditional right which can be exercised subject to some limitations mentioned under article 19(2). It states as follows:
Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall effect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the 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.
On a comprehensive approach it can be said that the every citizen of India is having the right to express his thoughts and views on any matter he intends too, but such right does not confer on the person exercising the right to put forward any view which will be against the reasonable restrictions mentioned under clause 2.
In India this right has a broad scope and is been used in various forms. First come the freedom of press which falls under one of the heads. The press which is considered to be the fourth pillar of our country has every right to make disclosure and publication of all the matters of general concern effecting the public at large. It is through the medium of newspapers and channels the general public out there receive all kinds of information from a normal issue to every crucial matter going on in their surroundings and in our State. The freedom of press plays a very important role in providing the public with day to day information regarding the matters happening in and around them.
In case of Indian Express vs Union of India, 1985 1 SCC 641, the court clearly stated the importance of role played by the press in the State. It stated that freedom of press if very much significant to run a democratic machinery and the court has to uphold freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom. Similar view was held in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. & Anr vs Asst. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors 1994 2 SCC 434 stating that freedom of press is placed on a higher footing than other enterprises. Freedom of press has been always cherished in all democratic countries. And further the decision was held based on the quote by Douglas, J in Terminiello vs Chicago that “acceptance by Government of a dissident press is a measure of the maturity of the nation.”
Similar freedom include the acts like freedom to broadcast the news that is in electronic methods, right to criticize any matter. Further the right to remain silent also falls under this head. In Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala 1986 3 SC 615 the court stated that right to remain silent falls under this head subject to condition that it does not contravene to provisions of any acts or to the Constitution. The court by law declared that all these acts fall under the head of freedom of speech and expression. Every individual irrespective of his status or position he holds in the society has the right to express his and views and also to question and criticize any acts effecting the individual or public at large. And further also has a right to receive information under right to information form the authorities and violation of which would lead to infringement providing the individual with remedy under the constitution.
On a contrary view while this right is provided to the citizens as a fundamental right it has been exercised or practiced in a wrong manner. This right has been misused by the citizens under the light that it is a fundamental right for which every citizen is provided with remedy if amounting to any kind of infringement.
It was observed in some instances that the individuals are enjoying the fruits of this rights by abusing them. It includes defaming an individual or a particular community, making statements or providing information which would create public disorder, serious discrepancies in and around the State or destroy the good and peaceful relations between foreign States. The information disclosed under the heads of all these acts are acceptable only when it is for the public good. All these acts are however inserted as restrictions under clause 2 of the article. But upon monitoring the situation it has caught the attention that this right is being abused and creating a situation of chaos in the State.
In Hamdard Dawakhana vs Union of India the issue was relating to the advertisement of prohibited drugs and commodities. The petitioners made allegations that they experienced difficulty in advertising their product. As the term, “prohibited drugs and commodities” above mentioned makes clear that they are not for public use and not for public good so it falls under the reasonable restriction and any information causing any harm to the public does not fall under head of article 19(1) (a), this view was held by the court.
In A. Abbas vs Union of India the issue was regarding the censorship of the movies, which was done under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The petitioner got an ‘A’ certificate for his movie which was allowed to be watched only by people of age above 18 years. The petitioner challenged on the ground that allotting ‘A’ certificate to his movie was restricting his fundamental right. But the court was of the opinion that the allotment was done by cinema board considering the content of the movie which would affect the children of age group below 18 years of age. Considering the innocence and mindset of the small age group people the court held that the movie would amount to be a bad effect on them and further stated that it does not amount to any infringement of petitioner fundamental right.
CONCLUSION:
The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under the constitution of India has a very broad scope in its application. This right provides for the free flow of thoughts by the individuals, giving them a platform to express their views. It assists every individual to share their views with other individuals and develop their personality. Further it helps to discover things, truth and analyze different aspects for its further development. It acts as a cause for self-development and building an established personality. But as observed above it has to come notice that this right is misused by the individuals and group of people under different heads. So, now the need of the hour is to make and introduce such strict provisions which would reduce the abuse of the fundamental right and it should be put to its accurate and faithful use.
REFERENCES:
- Indian Express vs Union of India, 1985 1 SCC 641
- Printers (Mysore) Ltd. & Anr vs Asst. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors 1994 2 SCC 434
- Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala 1986 3 SC 615
- Hamdard Dawakhana vs Union of India
- A. Abbas vs Union of India
- State of UP vs Raj Narain
- Union of India vs Naveen Jindal
- Wikipedia.org
- Indian Kanoon.org
- Legalserviceindia.com
- Constitutional of India – V.N. Shukla
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening