An unmistakable sign of freedom and liberty is the right to freedom of speech and expression. The State shall have no leeway to control the citizen as long as he follows some larger, liberal but pressing parameters, which in normal cases are instituted to protect the larger interests of the people, and not of the State apparatus.Germane to this right is the paradoxes it contains. It may be summed up in the saying that your freedom ends where my nose starts. It is premised on the respect one has for the rights of others as well as oneself. It is a contract between the two that they will be mindful of the rights of each other. Such rights call for a fair understanding for each other’s rights. An attempt to undermine the right of others could end up undermining one’s own rights. It is not for no reason that US President John F. Kennedy once reminded his fellow citizens that “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are questioned”.Article 19.1 (a) of the Indian Constitution is the custodian of the right: “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”. It, however, is not an unfettered right; Article 19.2 empowers the State to make laws to “impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right” and list six topics which could possibly restrict the rights: 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.So, it is evident from these constitutional provisions that the State has very limited power to restrict the right to freedom of speech and expression of a citizen and under specific conditions. It should have a parliamentary mandate too. That is, the Constitution comes in between the State and the citizen when the right is questioned, as with every other fundamental right.The question then arises: what is the role of the State when a citizen seeks to curtail the rights of another?The Karnataka government and the Karnataka high court were of the opinion that it is a matter to be settled between the two. When the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) banned the release of the film Thug Life in Karnataka, saying there will be backlash from Kannada activists because of a reference its lead actor Kamal Haasan made about Kannada and Tamil, the minister in charge of Kannada culture suggested the issue be settled between the actor and the industry body. The Karnataka high court went one step further, and suggested that the actor apologise for his comments instead of looking to settle the issue as per the Constitution. “Language is a sentiment attached to the land of people”, the court said while hearing a petition moved by the film’s producers. “Freedom of expression cannot be extended to the extent of hurting someone’s sentiment, of a mass in particular… Spoken words cannot be taken back, and they can only be apologised.” The court stressed no individual has the right to make comments that undermine the pride of an entire linguistic community and suggested that Kamal Haasan and the film’s producers had no right to approach the court seeking protection for the release of the film after creating such a situation.It took the Supreme Court’s forceful intervention to reset the totally wrong course the issue took, without which all those rights guaranteed under Article 19.1 would have been made subservient to the whims and fancies of people who claim their feelings are hurt when someone else exercises their rights. The court chose to see it through the prism of constitutional freedoms and came to the conclusion that there are attempts to infringe on them by the use of force. It criticised the Karnataka government and insisted that mobs and vigilantes cannot be allowed to take over streets, and that the rule of law must prevail. “If somebody has made a statement, counter it with a statement,” the apex court said, suggesting the democratic way to protest. “If somebody has written something, you can counter it by some writing.” It finally told the Karnataka government that “the rule of law demands that any film that has a CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) certificate must be released and the state has to ensure its screening. You cannot put a gun on people’s heads and say don’t watch the movie. It can’t be that at the fear of burning down cinemas, the film can’t be shown.”The Constitution is clear, the law is clear and the court is also clear on how to settle differences of opinion in a democracy.The recent instance of the producers of Malayalam film JSK — Janaki v/s State of Kerala, featuring prominent actor and Union minister Suresh Gopi moving the Kerala high court alleging delay by the CBFC in clearing it for screening. The petitioners alleged that the CBFC chairman referred the recommendation of the screening committee, which cleared the movie, to the revising committee, and they have been given to understand from news reports that the board has objected to the name “Janaki”, as it refers to Hindu goddess Sita. The court has now sought the opinion of the revising committee.It will be a frontal attack on fundamental rights if an agency of the Union government, formed to nurture and promote the people’s right to expression, is threatening to undermine them.Fundamental rights are so fundamental to the survival of the democracy that it cannot be left to the mercy of self-appointed commissars of culture. The Constitution and the rule of law must reign supreme.
Source link
