Supreme Court Questions Police Over Free Speech Misstep + UPSC?.ToString()?? UPSC?.ToString()+" Current Affairs";

Why in the News?
The Supreme Court of India recently questioned the Gujarat Police's understanding of the fundamental right to free speech and expression, following the registration of a criminal case against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi for a poem he shared on social media. The court emphasized the importance of respecting creativity and the essence of free speech, raising concerns about the police's sensitivity towards artistic expression.
Key Takeaways
1.Supreme Court’s Stand on Free Speech:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the poem in question, which advocates non-violence and love in the face of injustice, does not incite enmity. The court criticized the police for failing to comprehend the poem's message before filing an FIR (First Information Report).
2.Police’s Interpretation Under Scrutiny:
The Gujarat Police had registered the FIR based on a complaint alleging that the poem promoted enmity among caste and religious groups. However, the court questioned whether the police had adequately understood the poem's context and intent.
3.Comparison to Mahatma Gandhi:
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta objected to comparing the MP’s poem to Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence, calling it “cheap” poetry. The court, however, reiterated the importance of respecting creative expression.
4.Pending Judgment:
The court has reserved its judgment on the MP’s plea to quash the FIR, which was earlier denied by the Gujarat High Court in January.
Do You Know?
Freedom of Speech & Expression:
Introduction
Freedom of speech and expression is contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
The essence of free speech is the ability to think and speak freely and to obtain information from others through publications and public discourse without fear of retribution, restrictions or repression by the Government.
Article 19(1)(a), COI
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression.
The following aspects are included in Article 19(1)(a):
Freedom of Press
Freedom of Commercial Speech
Right to Broadcast
Right to Information
Right to Criticize
Right to expression beyond national boundaries
Right not to speak or right to silence
Essential Elements of Article 19(1)(a), COI
This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals.
It includes the right to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc.
This right is, however, not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose reasonable restrictions.
Article 19(2), COI
The exercise of this right is, however, subject to reasonable restrictions for certain purposes imposed under Article 19(2).
The Article 19 (2) states that nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect 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.
Significance of Article 19 (1)(a), COI
Societal good: Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment plays a significant role in the development of a particular society.
Self-development: Free speech is an integral aspect of each individual’s right to self-development and fulfilment. Restrictions inhibit our personality and its growth.
Democratic value: Freedom of speech is the bulwark of democratic Government. This freedom is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process as it allows people to criticize the government in a democracy, freedom of speech and expression open up channels of free discussion of issues.
Ensure pluralism: Freedom of Speech reflects and reinforces pluralism, ensuring that diversity is validated and promotes the self-esteem of those who follow a particular lifestyle.
Case Laws
In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court (SC) observed that freedom of the press lays at the foundation of all democratic organizations.
In Abbas v. Union of India (1970): The SC made it clear that censorship of films including pre-censorship was constitutionally valid in India as it was a reasonable restriction imposed on Article 19(1)(a) of the COI.
In Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India (1972): The SC struck down the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, which fixed the maximum number of pages, holding it to be violative of provision of Article 19(1)(a) and not to be reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the COI.
In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): The SC held that the freedom of speech and expression is not confined to National boundaries.
In Indian Express v. Union of India (1985): The SC held that the Press plays a very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have a duty to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom.
In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): The SC held that the right to speak includes the right to be silent or to utter no words.
In Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms (2002): The SC held that one-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and noninformation, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions.
The Bigger Picture
This case underscores the ongoing tension between freedom of expression and law enforcement's interpretation of what constitutes a threat to public order. The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the need for a balanced approach that respects artistic and creative expression while ensuring public harmony. As the court noted, understanding the context and intent of creative works is crucial before taking legal action.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Gujarat Police’s actions serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding free speech in a democracy. While reasonable restrictions are necessary, they must not stifle creativity or discourage individuals from expressing their thoughts. This case could set a significant precedent for how artistic expressions are treated under the law in the future.