New Delhi: In a very significant development, the top court Tuesday said that the right to live with dignity is more important than the right to free speech and expression, unequivocally holding up Article 21 on a higher pedestal.
“Right to dignity also emanates from a right, which someone else is claiming. Article 19 (free speech and expression) cannot overpower Article 21 (right to dignity). Article 21 must prevail if any competition (between the two rights) takes place,” remarked a bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi.
The verbal comments were made when the judges heard a petition filed by Cure SMA India Foundation, accusing five stand-up comedians, including Samay Raina, of making insensitive remarks targeting persons with disabilities.
Though the judges spoke verbally and not through a written order or a judgement, their words are significant, especially now when there has been an uptick in cases involving conflict between the two rights—free speech and living with dignity. The courts across India are facing the tough challenge to strike a balance between Articles 19 and 21.
Tuesday’s observation clearly indicates the bench’s view on which of the two is a more cherished right, even though it emphasised on the need to balance the right to free speech under Article 19 with the right to reputation under Article 21. It came a day after another bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna mulled at the possible options to curb “divisive tendencies” on social media.
Sitting with Justice K.V. Vishwanathan, the judge observed citizens must know the value of freedom of speech and expression and observe self-regulation. The bench, which called for detailed deliberations on guidelines to curb posting of objectionable content on social media, was hearing West Bengal-based Wazahat Khan’s plea to club criminal cases registered against him for his post against Hindu deities. Khan had filed a complaint against another social media influencer, Sharmistha Panoli, for making communal remarks in a video. He is already under interim protection by virtue of an SC order.
On Tuesday another SC bench expressed concern over the “tendency” of citizens to post “anything and everything” on social media, which it said was in poor taste. A bench of justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar were hearing Madhya Pradesh-based cartoonist’s plea to protect him in a case registered against him for posting a “revolting” cartoon on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Though the bench gave interim protection to cartoonist Hemant Malviya, it strongly condemned him for the quality of cartoons he had posted on his social media platform. On seeing some of his other works, Justice Kumar observed that one of them definitely attracted penal action. The bench left it to the state to act in accordance with the law.
Stand-up comedian Raina was the host of Youtube show India’s Got Latent, where podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia made “distasteful and obnoxious comments,” leading to registration of multiple FIRs. Both Raina and Allahbadia are named in the FIRs.
Raina was the host of Youtube show India’s Got Latent, where podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia made “distasteful and obnoxious comments,” leading to registration of multiple FIRs. Both Raina and Allahbadia are named in the FIRs.
Allahbadia was first to approach SC with his plea for pre-arrest bail and clubbing FIRs registered in Maharashtra, Assam and Rajasthan. The court gave him relief, but on condition that he would not host or participate in any show. A few weeks later, the SC allowed him to resume his podcast, provided he did not breach general standards of morality and decency.
In the same show, Raina made fun of blind and cross-eyed persons and, according to Cure SMA India Foundation, there were multiple instances where persons with disabilities were ridiculed in the show.
While issuing notice to Raina and the four stand-up comedians, the court had in May suggested the government frame guidelines to curb “distasteful” and “obnoxious” speech, particularly on the social media, which demeans anyone under the garb of right to free speech and expression.
Calling for regulatory measures, the bench had observed that there should be implementation of “reasonable restrictions” on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
During the hearing Tuesday, the bench proposed a mechanism for regulation of online content, but stated it must conform to constitutional principles.
The judges took a dig at the “many free advisers” who “exist in the market” to comment on the freedom of speech.
Justice Kant agreed with Attorney General for India R Venkataramani’s view that the proposed guidelines must be discussed, saying inputs of all stakeholders should be taken.
“There are many free advisers in the market. Ignoring them… the guidelines should be in conformity with constitutional principles balancing freedom and where rights and duties start. We will have open debate on such guidelines. Let all stakeholders also come and give their viewpoints,” Justice Kant remarked.
The bench agreed to grant more time to the Centre to formulate the guidelines, after the Attorney General asked for it, saying their enforceability is an issue and needs to be considered at length.
“We would like to test the guidelines. You have to have guidelines which are in conformity with constitutional principles, comprising both parts – freedom, where limit of that freedom ends, and where duties start,” the bench observed.
Talking about Article 21’s supremacy, the bench told Venkataramani that the guidelines must ensure that they are not misused by anyone. “There has to be a balance. We have to protect citizens’ rights. But framework has to be there so that dignity of anyone is not violated,” the bench clarified.
Adhering to the May order, the five comedians were present in the court. Ordering them to appear in court at the next hearing, scheduled after a week, the bench asked the five to file their response to Cure SMA India Foundation’s petition. It said the cases will proceed against the individuals for their distasteful comments and each would be scrutinised thoroughly.
“No further time shall be granted. Let rejoinder if any be filed after one week thereafter. Post the matter thereafter,” the Court ordered. Only one of the five was given permission to appear online on the next date.
(Edited to Viny Mishra)
Also read: Indian taxpayers are paying for a clownish police investigation into Kunal Kamra
Right to dignity ? So he made a joke about disabled people which if you understood the joke was a pro disability joke.
This is just absolute nonsense. Every group in this country will start complaining about their so called “dignity”. The courts should be ashamed and the country should be embarrassed to even support such things. You won’t be able to criticize anything tomorrow unless you are a politician.