Paper: GS – II, Subject: Polity, Topic: Judiciary, Issue: Issues with the recent court judgements.
Context:
Recent court judgments in India have sparked debate over how judiciary is handling cases related to freedom of speech, sentiments, and constitutional morality. There is an increasing tendency to prioritize public sentiments and outrage over constitutional rights, particularly Article 19(1)(a)
Key Highlights:
Issues with the judgements:
Erosion of Freedom of Speech Protections:Courts are moving away from defending provocative speech, focusing instead on civility and national pride.Article 19(1)(a) is being treated as a behavioral code, not a constitutional right.
| Case studies on freedom of speech: Prayagraj social media case: A student was reprimanded for criticizing the PM over the Pakistan ceasefire.The Kerala film incident (Thugs of Hindustan): A court considered emotional hurt rather than constitutional legality.Historian Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s case: Prosecuted for comments on India-Pakistan relations due to public sentiments.Rahul Gandhi defamation case: Shows how public officials and institutions are shielded under vague legal standards. |
- Misreading of Constitutional Design: Judiciary is equating emotional reactions to speech with criminal liability by encouraging apologies, bans, and FIRs shifts the legal focus from protecting rights to policing public emotions.
- Subjective Standards replacing Legal Ones: Courts are using terms like “vulgar”, “offensive”, and “sentimental hurt” without clear legal benchmarks. This promotes arbitrary censorship and suppresses legitimate critique.
- Inconsistent stand: Judicial Precedent Lacking in consistency; subjectivity replacing constitutional interpretation.
Constitutional Implications:
- Article 19(1)(a): Undermined by overemphasis on hurt sentiments
- Article 19(2): Misused to justify vague restrictions on free speech
Implications:
For Democracy:
- It weakens the counter-majoritarian role of the judiciary.
- Encourages mob veto over lawful expression.
- Leads to self-censorship among citizens and media.
For Governance:
- Legal system may become a tool of repression.
- Undermines public trust in judicial independence.
For Civil Society:
- Shrinks space for dissent, satire, criticism, and activism.
- Promotes moral policing and curbs innovation and thought leadership.
Way ahead:
- Courts must uphold individual liberties, not societal sentiment.
- Apologies should not be judicially mandated.
- Return to objective, rights-based constitutional interpretation.
- Recognize that free speech is not always agreeable speech — its real test lies in tolerating dissent and provocation.
Conclusion:
The judiciary’s current path of prioritizing sentimental hurt over legal reasoning signals a regressive approach to constitutional governance. Upholding freedom of speech in its true spirit is essential for preserving the democratic character of the Republic.
La Excellence IAS Academy, the best IAS coaching in Hyderabad, known for delivering quality content and conceptual clarity for UPSC 2025 preparation.
FOLLOW US ON:
◉ Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/@CivilsPrepTeam
◉ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaExcellenceIAS
◉ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laexcellenceiasacademy/
GET IN TOUCH:
Contact us at info@laex.in, https://laex.in/contact-us/
or Call us @ +91 9052 29 2929, +91 9052 99 2929, +91 9154 24 2140
OUR BRANCHES:
Head Office: H No: 1-10-225A, Beside AEVA Fertility Center, Ashok Nagar Extension, VV Giri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, 500020
Madhapur: Flat no: 301, survey no 58-60, Guttala begumpet Madhapur metro pillar : 1524, Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana 500081
Bangalore: Plot No: 99, 2nd floor, 80 Feet Road, Beside Poorvika Mobiles, Chandra Layout, Attiguppe, Near Vijaya Nagara, Bengaluru, 560040
