In recent years, various forms of media, particularly online streaming platforms and social media, have showcased content that some sections of society deem inappropriate or offensive.
Dipak Kurmi
The cornerstone of any democracy is the unassailable right to freedom of speech and expression. The Indian Constitution, under Article 19(1)(a), upholds this right as fundamental to the democratic fabric of the nation. However, this liberty has not remained without restrictions. Even in the nascent years of independent India, then-Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru introduced certain limitations, arguing that unchecked freedom could allow individuals to incite violence or commit other grave offenses without fear of legal consequences. This approach was in line with many other democracies where absolute freedom of speech is tempered by legal boundaries to prevent its misuse.
More than seven decades later, the Supreme Court of India has again raised concerns over the potential abuse of this fundamental right, particularly in the digital age, where unregulated content proliferates rapidly. The court has suggested the need for regulatory measures to curb the use of vulgar and offensive language in online content, ensuring that moral standards are upheld without infringing upon constitutional liberties. However, this move raises pertinent questions about the balance between regulation and censorship, and whether such measures could inadvertently curtail free expression in the name of societal decency.
The concerns are not entirely unfounded. In recent years, various forms of media, particularly online streaming platforms and social media, have showcased content that some sections of society deem inappropriate or offensive. In Kerala, for instance, a surge in violent crimes committed by young individuals has been linked to a certain genre of films glorifying brutality. The situation has prompted the state government to consider discussions with filmmakers to address the potential influence of such media on impressionable minds. This reflects a larger global debate on the impact of media consumption on societal behavior and the ethical responsibilities of content creators.
However, the call for regulation carries inherent risks. The government, if allowed to intervene excessively, could become an overbearing force, suppressing legitimate expression under the guise of maintaining moral standards. The Supreme Court’s observation comes at a time when concerns over the arbitrary application of laws on free speech are already mounting. On the same day the court suggested regulatory measures, another bench rebuked the Gujarat police for filing an unwarranted case against a Congress Member of Parliament over a poem advocating non-violence. The incident underscores how the enforcement of speech-related laws can be misused to target political dissent or creative expression, rather than addressing actual harm.
The judiciary has traditionally favored self-regulation over external censorship. However, as the landscape of communication evolves, the courts are finding themselves compelled to address the increasing instances of perceived abuse of free speech. While the intention behind regulatory suggestions may be noble, the execution remains a precarious affair. Any proposed regulation must be framed with caution to ensure that it aligns with the constitutional commitment to democratic freedoms. The judiciary must act as a vigilant guardian, ensuring that its call for governmental intervention does not pave the way for authoritarian restrictions on free speech.
History offers cautionary tales about the perils of unchecked governmental control over speech. Across the world, nations that have imposed stringent restrictions in the name of public morality or national security have often slid into authoritarianism, where dissent is stifled and creativity curtailed. India, with its rich democratic tradition, must tread carefully to avoid such a fate. The metaphor of Lord Shiva’s blessing to Bhasmasura—a boon that ultimately turned into a curse—serves as a fitting analogy. If regulatory measures are not carefully crafted, they may backfire, eroding the very freedoms they seek to protect.
As India navigates this complex terrain, the onus lies on both the government and the judiciary to ensure that any measures taken to curb the misuse of free speech do not end up undermining the fundamental principles of democracy. The preservation of free expression must remain paramount, with regulations serving as safeguards rather than shackles. Only through a balanced approach can India uphold its democratic ideals while addressing contemporary challenges in the realm of speech and expression.
(the writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
