Paper: II
For Prelims: Freedom of speech and expression.
For Mains: Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure.
 
 
 
Context of News:

• Recently two events has concluded; one is Supreme Court’s remarks while denying interim protection from arrest to the maker and actor of the web series Tandav and, a day later, the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s rejection of bail to comedian Munawar Faruqui point out some of the disturbing pictures of already shrinking space of freedom of speech and expression in India.
• These two incidents is also revealing about the grim picture that is still prevailing in the context of freedom of speech and expression in India.

Freedom of speech and expression:

• This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals.
• The freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) includes the right to express ones views and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc.
• This right however provided under article 19(1), is not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality and contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Report of “CIVICUS Monitor”, a global research collaboration on Freedom Space in India: 

• The Space for dissension with the majoritarian narrative, free expression and criticizing the ruling dispensation is shrinking in India, a report by CIVICUS Monitor published in the December 2019 reveals that.
• Based on its findings, the global freedom watchdog has downgraded India’s rating from ‘Obstructed’ to ‘Repressed’.
• The report had expressed “extreme concern” about the crackdown on human rights activists, attacks on journalists and civil society groups, and the lockdown on civic freedoms in Jammu and Kashmir.

Court’s Stand on Both Tandav Case and Munawar Faruqui case:

• Supreme Court’s denied interim protection from arrest to the maker and actor of the web series Tandav and, a day later, the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected bail to comedian Munawar Faruqui.
• In both cases there is frequent run-ins between religious belief and the freedom of speech and expression, the balance appears to be tipping away from constitutional freedom, and the courts are showing quiescence or complicity in this process.
• The makers of Tandav face an array of FIRs in various states, despite having deleted scenes which allegedly offended the religious sentiments of some viewers. Faruqui and five other accused have been in jail for close to a month, having been arrested on charges of “insulting” Hindu gods.
• In both cases, it appears the artistes have been arraigned for the exercise of their creative freedoms — though, in Faruqui’s case, the Indore police are on record stating they have no video evidence of him even making the jokes. In both cases, the individuals have not found relief from the courts.

Remarks of SC on Issues similar to Case of Tandav and Faruqui:

• observations made by Court ,breaks away  from the past judgments in which the highest court has upheld that the arts represent a realm of thought that must be protected from overzealous cultural police (on the film Padmaavat, and the Malayalam novel Meesha).
• The remarks of the court risk making the artist community even more vulnerable, especially when the apparent democratization of the right to be offended is producing a growing army of vigilantes eager to settle all debates over artistic expression with the blunt force of criminal law.

SC, while granting bail to television anchor Arnab Goswami, had argued that the courts remain “the first line of defence against the deprivation of liberty of citizens”, that “bail, not jail” was fundamental to the legal system, and that “deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many”. 

For Further Reading Click Here