Supreme Court’s ‘Supreme Strictness’ on ‘Freedom of Speech’, know when the freedom of speech ‘ends’?

For the last 15 days, the matter of freedom of expression (freedom of speech) has remained a matter of discussion. In fact, the Supreme Court has shown strictness in this matter for the second time. The first case was related to hate speech. And the latest one is related to the ban on a news channel in Kerala. In the last case, during the hearing, the Supreme Court even called the government impotent. On the other hand, in the case of news channel ban, it has been said that if the government is criticized in the coverage or opinion of any media institution. So it will not be considered anti-national.

Commenting on the media’s right to raise questions, the Supreme Court has also made strict comments on the use of words like anti-national.

What is the whole matter

The latest case is related to Channel One running from Kerala. This Malayalam news channel was banned. The Supreme Court has removed this ban. The removal of this ban is being considered very important for the freedom of the press. In fact, the Supreme Court has said that running news related to criticism of the government or criticizing the government is not anti-national. It has also been said that no action can be taken against any media institution by terming such critical coverage as a threat to the security of the country.

It was further said that in this way the security clearance of any media channel cannot be stopped. Media is free to express its views. Stopping the freedom of opinion in the name of the security of the country will have a very bad effect on the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press.

The Supreme Court also said that the ban on the channel is not correct even because of airy talks like the channel’s share holders being linked with Jamaat-e-Islami. The Supreme Court even expressed surprise at the decision of the Kerala High Court. The SC said that despite the information given to the Kerala High Court in a sealed cover, how did the Kerala High Court justify the ban on the channel?

After all, what is a sealed cover?

This term is used during court proceedings. This is such a document, which the government does not want to share with the other party. Usually it is given on issues of national security. If the information given in the sealed envelope becomes public, national security may be at risk.

In some cases, the Supreme Court itself asks for a sealed report. At the same time, many times the government and agencies also hand over the sealed cover to the court. The information given in it is not disclosed to other parties or parties until the court asks itself to do so.

Because the other party does not know about the information of this envelope which has been presented in the court, so other parties involved in the case are not able to give any argument against the claims of the document to defend themselves.

By the way, the court has expressed disagreement many times regarding giving any kind of information to the court in a closed envelope even at the time of the old governments. But in recent times, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is very strict about this. And this person has always been expressing disagreement on giving information in the envelope. It is believed that giving information in a closed envelope does not reach the media and the things that should reach the public through the media.

In many cases, the aggrieved party loses the information of the closed envelope. The reason is that the aggrieved party does not know what has been said about him in the closed envelope. For example, Channel One would not know anything about the information given to Kerala High Court about Channel One in a closed envelope.

Question on the culture of closed envelopes

By the way, the culture of closed envelope is a separate topic in itself. But even in the recent case of Channel One, the Supreme Court has raised serious questions on the use of closed envelopes. Questioning the culture of sealed envelopes, the court said that due to this, the aggrieved party’s right to appeal is affected.

In such a situation, it was impossible for him to present his stand against the information given in the sealed envelope. And the verdict went against him. For this reason, the Supreme Court says that whoever is the affected party should know the information inside the closed envelope.

Need to reduce the trend of closed envelopes

The Supreme Court did not deny the importance of information given in a sealed cover in serious matters of national security. But there is talk of reducing its trend.

What does the law of the country say about freedom of speech?

After the independence of the country i.e. after 1947, when the constitution was made, Indian citizens were given all those rights in Article 19, for which they had fought a long battle. Many rights have been given in the constitution from article 19 to 22.

Under Article 19 (1) (A), all the citizens of the country have been given the right to freedom of speech and expression. Only Indian citizens have got these rights of Article 19. If someone is from outside i.e. foreigner then he has not been given these rights.

If you understand the freedom of speech and expression in simple language, then an Indian citizen can express his thoughts in this country by writing, speaking, printing, by gesture or in any other way.

At the same time, information has also been given in Article 19 (2) about the rules when freedom of speech can be restricted. Those circumstances are-

Nothing should be said which threatens the sovereignty and integrity of India. Threat to the security of the state. There is a danger of deteriorating friendly relations with neighboring countries or foreign countries, there is a danger of disturbing public order, harming the interests of decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation of someone, incitement to crime.

Earlier also channels and publications have been banned

Year 1950: The Madras government, which is now the Tamil Nadu government, banned the weekly magazine ‘Crossroads’. Allegedly, this magazine used to criticize the policies of the then Nehru government. Although this ban was challenged in the Supreme Court and later this ban was removed.

With the order to lift the ban, the Supreme Court said that law and order cannot be justified under the guise of ‘security of the state’. The court said that this ban is not only unconstitutional, but also restricts the freedom of expression to some extent.

Year 1950: A similar ban was imposed on an English magazine organizer. At that time, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had asked to take permission before publishing anything in this magazine. On this matter, the Supreme Court had said that the order affects the constitutional ideal of free speech, taking permission before printing puts restrictions on its freedom.

Supreme Court became strict on the issue of hate speech

Earlier, during the hearing of another case, the Supreme Court had even called the government impotent. The court says that the government is impotent and does not take timely action. While hearing this case of hate speech, the Supreme Court had even said that if there is no ban on hate speeches, then what difference does it make if there is no government.

What is the matter

The Supreme Court questioned the objectionable rhetoric against the Muslim community. Justice KM Joseph misled the state government while hearing the case of Hindu Jan Aakrosh rally held in Mumbai in the past. He said, ‘The Maharashtra government is impotent and is not doing anything. It’s quiet, that’s why everything is happening. Justice Joseph said that the time has come when politics and religion will be separated. All this will come to an end. If politicians stop using religion. All this will stop.

Initiative to include hate speech in IPC

Recently, an initiative was taken to include inflammatory speech and hate speech under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Ministry of Home Affairs also considered some proposals for this. But it still remains a big challenge. In fact, the Ministry of Home Affairs may have taken the initiative to curb hate speech and make a provision to punish it, but the path is not easy for this. The biggest challenge that the committee will face is how to define hate speech. Many such issues are still pending in different courts of the country.