Polity

KEY POINTS

Why it should not be restricted?

·         If we suppress Freedom of speech and expression on account of threat of demonstrations and processions and threat of violence, it would be a threat to democratic dissent and artistic creativity.

·         It is the duty of the regulatory bodies to determine, whether an art form consist of material which will upset the sentiments of a community and distorts history or not. There is no role for a passer-by in it.

Constitutional safeguards

·         Our Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

·         Like all fundamental rights, it is not absolute. It can be restricted inter alia on the grounds of decency, public order or defamation.

·         However, the restriction imposed should not be excessive or arbitrary.

Precedents of Supreme Court

·         In S. Rangarajan v/s P. Jagajivan Ram case, where the Supreme Court held that “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstrations and processions and threat of violence.”

·         In a case against the movie: An Insignificant Man, Supreme court reads that, freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and it should not be ordinarily interfered with.

Social impact

·         Facts and fiction are interwoven together and this amalgam becomes an imagined history, which may tell us what people thought their heroic ancestors were capable of, and what ideals they inspired from them.

·         Imagined history – a mixture of fact and fiction, or sometimes only fiction, would help a society to follow noble ideals and resulted in greater wellbeing of the society.

·         But, freedom of expression has the capability to reverse these phenomena through positivist fixation with recorded evidence.

·         Meanwhile, it is irrelevant to curb the freedom of expression on the face of a social impact. Because, it is the argumentative citizen who makes democracy possible and stronger.

Kindly review. Thanks.