More Coverage
Twitter Coverage
JOIN SATYAAGRAH SOCIAL MEDIA
Supreme Court of India Justice Nagarathna ~ Hate Speech denies human beings the Right to Dignity, and a greater responsibility is cast upon public functionaries and celebrities against vitriolic statements owing to their position
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench has held by way of a majority that statements made by a Minister, even if traceable to any affairs of state, cannot be attributed vicariously to the government. Justice Nagarathna, who was also a part of the constitution bench, though held that greater restriction cannot be imposed on free speech, she has added that in case a Minister makes disparaging statements in his "official capacity", then such statements can be vicariously attributed to the government ~ Synopsis
|
While observing that in a human-dignity-based democracy, freedom of speech and expression must be exercised in a manner that would protect and promote the rights of fellow-citizens, Justice BV Nagarathan has held that hate speech, whatever its content may be, denies human beings the right to dignity.
In India, human dignity is not only a value but a right that is enforceable, the Supreme Court judge has added while penning down her separate views in the Supreme Court's recent decision wherein it held that no additional restrictions, other than those prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, can be imposed on the freedom of speech of MPs and MLAs and other public functionaries.
Noting that the term ‘hate speech’ does not find a specific place in Article 19(2) of the Constitution and it does not constitute a specific exception to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), Justice Nagarathna has observed,
"Possibly the framers of the Constitution did not find the same to be of relevance in the Indian social mosaic considering that the other cherished values of our Constitution such as fraternity and dignity of the individual would be strong factors which would negate any form of hate speech to be uttered in our Country."
Justice Nagarathna has further opined that public functionaries and other persons of influence and celebrities, having regard to their reach, real or apparent authority and the impact they wield on the public or on a certain section thereof, owe a duty to the citizenry at large to be more responsible and restrained in their speech.
"They are required to understand and measure their words, having regard to the likely consequences thereof on public sentiment and behaviour, and also be aware of the example they are setting for fellow citizens to follow....While there are no infallible rules that can be formulated by the Court to define the precise threshold of acceptable speech, every citizen’s conscious attempt to abide by the Constitutional values, and to preserve in letter and spirit the culture contemplated under the Constitution will significantly contribute in eliminating instances of 71 societal discord, friction and disharmony, on account of disparaging, vitriolic and derogatory speech, particularly when made by public functionaries and/or public figures....", it has been added.
|
In reference to the concept of tortious liability of the government when disparaging remarks are made by Ministers, the judge has held that if fundamental rights have been violated, and if the court is satisfied that the grievance of the petitioner is well founded, it may grant the relief by enforcing a person’s fundamental right. Such relief may be in the form of monetary compensation/damages.
Justice Nagarathna has further added that the Parliament in its wisdom must enact a legislation or code to restrain, citizens in general and public functionaries, in particular, from making disparaging or vitriolic remarks against fellow citizens, having regard to the strict parameters of Article 19(2) and bearing in mind the freedom under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
She has added that respective political parties should regulate and control the actions and speech of its functionaries and members. This could be through enactment of a Code of Conduct which would prescribe 121 the limits of permissible speech by functionaries and members of the respective political parties, she has said.
"Any citizen, who is prejudiced by any form of attack, as a result of speech/expression through any medium, targeted against her/him or by speech which constitutes ‘hate speech’ or any species thereof, whether such attack or speech is by a public functionary or otherwise, may approach the Court of Law under Criminal and Civil statutes and seek appropriate remedies. Whenever permissible, civil remedies in the nature of declaratory remedies, injunctions as well as pecuniary damages may be awarded as prescribed under the relevant statutes....", the judgment adds.
Case Title: Kaushal Kishore vs. State of UP
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
Please share the article on other platforms
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
Related Articles
- SC bench of Justices Chandrachud and AS Bopanna rules in favor of Muslim petitioner: “Don’t exclude non-Hindus from auction process for shop leases in temple”
- “There’s no such thing as failure – just waiting for success”: After denying clearances for development projects for three decades, the Indian Supreme Court green bench clears 118 development projects already delayed for 5 years for pending litigation
- Uphaar Cinema fire was one of the worst fire tragedies in recent Indian history: Association of Victims of Uphaar Fire Tragedy (AVUT) filed a landmark case considered a breakthrough in civil compensation law in India
- "Access is vital in lobbying. If you can't get in your door, you can't make your case": CJI Chandrachud removed justice MR Shah from the bench hearing forced conversion for not succumbing to lobby's pressure, was scheduled for Feb, now listed on Jan 16
- Plea of MP Navneet Rana and husband MLA Ravi Rana to quash FIR for the gruesome and heinous crime of reciting Hanuman Chalisa outside Matoshree dismissed by Bombay HC: Justices stated that it was devoid of merit
- "Justice for sale, affordability varies": In an escalating controversy, Udhayanidhi Stalin's fierce criticisms of Sanatana Dharma lead to public uproar & legal petitions, Supreme Court denies expedited hearing, ‘Won’t allow it, follow standard procedures’
- Supreme Court halts Jahangirpuri demolition of illegal encroachments of rioters by NDMC on priority by keeping aside 70,632 pending cases: PIL filed by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, Advocate Dushyant Dave, and Kapil Sibal
- "No neutrality, there is only greater or lesser awareness of one's bias": Joshimath Sinking - Supreme Court refuses urgent hearing, "there are democratically elected institutions to look into issue & everything of urgency does not have to come to court"
- "Can omnibus orders be passed against demolitions": Supreme Court asks in Jamiat pleas challenging "Bulldozer" actions against anti-social elements in Uttar Pradesh and other states, refuses to pass interim orders, next hearing on Aug 10
- Supreme Court stays Allahabad HC order to take over land from Mohammad Ali Jauhar Trust: State Govt of UP allotted 400 acres to the Trust that violated the conditions and built a Mosque instead of a university