What the Supreme Court said during the hearing of two separate cases related to freedom of expression, where it is very important for constitutional and democratic values, it is also the basis of a balanced and ideal social system. There is a need to understand the implications of the decisions made by the Supreme Court in these cases related to freedom of expression and hurting religious sentiments. While hearing a petition related to the use of the words ‘Mian-Tian’ and ‘Pakistani’, a bench of Justice BV Nagratna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma accused the accused of the case on the grounds that it is not equal to the crime of hurting religious sentiments under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Cowls. By the way, the court considered the use of these words to be non-comprehensive. On the allegations of obscenity in the case related to another Ranveer Allahabadia, the Supreme Court made a very balanced but sharp comment and clarified that neither any scope should be left for vulgarity nor should it be allowed to come in the path of freedom of expression. While allowing Ranveer Allahabadia to continue podcast, the Supreme Court also said that he should not make the mistake of crossing the limits of morality and obscenity. The Supreme Court took seriously these complex situations related to freedom of expression and cleaned many foggy. The Supreme Court should be welcomed by the bright decisions associated with freedom of expression.
It is an irony and discrepancy of our justice process that it took almost four years to travel from the lower court to the Supreme Court for words like these ‘Mian-Tians’ and ‘Pakistani’ used against a government employee, but both sides did not try to show this prudence at any stage that it is just a battle of ego. An FIR was registered by the Gujarat Police on a poem by Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi. The Gujarat High Court also confirmed the police action, stating the need to investigate the matter. In view of this, the Supreme Court’s remarks matters that before registering the FIR, the concerned officials and the police should have read the poem. Poetry talks about justice and love, not hate and violence. The apex court said that it has been 75 years of independence. At least now the police should understand the heart of independent expression. The message of this Supreme Court is absolutely clear and justified. However, it is not hidden that the police do not work in an autonomous manner. Many actions have to be done under the pressure of the ruling party. Therefore, in the case of opposition parties and community, if the law of freedom of expression is marginalized or ignored, it is not surprising. It is no less ironic that the courts have to explain the ideas expressed in literature and arts. The power has always been getting rid of its criticism, who will protect the freedom of expression in such complex situations?
Also read: How will the ‘exploitation’ of patients in private hospitals stop, who responsible for?
This has not happened for the first time, even before this, there have been long debates on the freedom of speech and expression on many occasions, till the movement, there was an atmosphere of violence and anarchy. Every time the courts give advice to the police, they also understand and learn from their intervention so that a balanced environment is maintained. But perhaps neither the police nor the fierce and destructive powers understood the need to implement it with seriousness and sensitivity. The result of this is that even now when such cases reach the courts, which are accused of hurting someone’s sentiments and seizing of mutual harmony of different communities, whereas in reality they do not actually happen. There has been an atmosphere of unnecessarily hatred, malice and hatred, whether it has been accused on the comments made on any historical-dilemma context of any historical-dictatorship incident.
Today, the tendency of unbearable use of forums such as social media is increasing, such materials are being served on social forums like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, which are rude, indecent, violent, misleading, anti-national and hurting people of particular community, which aims to break the nation. On these social forums, such people are active, who believe in the policy of sabotage, they are determined to do good acts like character-loss and abuse and create chaotic atmosphere by adopting a ruthless and destructive policy. There should be no place for such violence, obscenity, hatred and misleading information in a progressive, decent and gentle society, but the irony is that the government is not able to control these chaotic situations due to freedom of expression. The Supreme Court underlined the difference between censorship and normal (norms), expressing concern over misuse of social media related forums. He said that the government should bring guidelines in this regard, but while doing so it is also necessary to keep in mind that they should not take the form of unnecessary restrictions on freedom of expression.
The importance of this tough stance of the Supreme Court also increases because it has come to light when the deviation, malice and hatred of various communities seems to be great in the name of freedom of expression in the country. Efforts to stop them from the administration, also often give a glimpse of extreme enthusiasm. However, these platforms of social media have also been seen playing a positive role for healthy democracy. They are also in danger of strictly interrupting the rights of a lot of people who keep their views in a healthy way and pay attention to many consideration issues. But the way a large number of nuisance, violent, national and social harmony have become active, it is natural to worry about it. This leads to violation of the right to expression of citizens, while its misuse is also seen to be unbearable conditions. The apex court has reminded that this right should be taken care of. It is necessary to curb them and provide strict action against them.
India’s sovereignty and integrity, security of the country, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation or provocation for any crime cannot be given freedom of speech and expression. The government can impose proper restrictions on speech and freedom of expression to protect them. The Supreme Court reiterated its reluctance towards sensorship as well as the right to freedom of expression. But it also said that such an idea is not a license for ‘substandard ideas’ and ‘dirty things’. Actually, the scale on which poisoning is happening on social media these days has increased the challenges of the police. But his actions are not effective because the state-by-states also become clear the political parties behind them. The state police often shows readiness in the case of anti -government posts, but it ignores the same activities of people associated with the ruling party. In such a situation, the Supreme Court has appropriately realized the Gujarat Police that it has to deal with anti -social elements and also protect the basic democratic value of freedom of expression. Obviously, without the disaster, the citizen is good and society is also good in the use of freedom.
– Fine Garg
Writer, journalist, columnist
