All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The restrictions upon a fundamental right could be imposed only by law. i.e., only an elected legislature could restrict the freedom of speech in the interests of an overwhelmingly important public goal.
Also, this restriction could then be challenged before independent courts.
Thus, the Constitution protected citizens’ fundamental rights through two layers of safeguards.
How Supreme Court’s role is changing?
In recent months, that the delicate balancing between rights and public goals has come under immense strain, however, this time it is because of the Supreme Court.
Of late, the Court has begun to redefine its own role under the Constitution, from transforming itself from the guardian of civil rights to agreat, overarching moral and political censor.
This is a role that the framers of constitution never envisaged. And it runs contrary to the very spirit of our Constitution.
What are three instances that had happened recently?
First, despite the film ‘Jolly LLB2’ was cleared by the Censor Board, the High Court of Bombay found certain scenes in the film “defame” the legal profession.
So, it ordered four cuts to be made. The producers moved the Supreme Court, but the SC has refused to intervene or to hear the merits of their case.
Second, acting upon a “public interest litigation”, the Court passed an interim order compelling all cinema theaters to play the national anthem.
It totally forget to think, is this kind of compelled patriotism something it can impose upon India’s free and independent citizens.
And lastly, the SC has passed a lot of interim orders, in a case involving sex-determination tests.
In the latest order, it directed internet search engines to block access to websites (by blocking search keywords), that are involved in someway to sex-determination.
The Court’s orders amount to making entire area of the Internet off-limits for everyone, no matter what the purpose is – research, investigation, or curiosity.
Why these happenings are worrying?
The ‘public interest litigation’ began as a movement to democratise access to courts. It discarded traditional rules of evidence and vested vast powers in courts to do justice.
But, in 2017, this very dilution of rules and existence of vast powers have become weapons in the hands of courts to cut down rights.
Instead of our elected representatives making laws, now, the Court has begun to make its own laws limiting, restricting, and suffocating speech.
Another example being, the Madras HC ordered that the teaching of Thirukkural be made compulsory in all schools. Here, again, it was made in the absence of any law.
The Supreme Court has indeed reduced us to passive subjects instead of active and thinking citizens by telling us what we can watch; what we can search; and how, when and where we must be patriotic.
Thus, this transformation of the Supreme Court into the Supreme Censor, is certainly a worrying sign.
