Democracy and Freedom of Expression

India has a long history of religious activists using laws, some dating back to the 1860s, to block publications and works of art that they find objectionable. On the other side of the fence, writers, academics and artists perceive this movement as a threat to freedom of speech and artistic expression, which the Law, politicians, the publishing industry, universities and civil society seem unable or unwilling to defend. This article explores the latest wave of citizen-censorship in India, described by one writer as India’s ‘Ice Age for scholarship’. It looks at the main players, places these events in context, describes some of the drivers and looks gloomily at the future of free speech in India.

The Constitution of India gives a free democratic government to its people. Freedom of speech and expression is a sacred icon in the Constitution’s inner sanctum, which has been provided to the people in the Fundamental Rights chapter. This freedom is a central tenet of India’s constitutional faith. The members of the constituent Assembly had seen the oppressive and discriminatory regime of the Britishers. They all valued Freedom and Liberty. Textually, it is recognized in article 19 that also lists certain other fundamental freedoms that Indian citizens enjoy. Clause (1) (a) of that article protects free speech. With the help of some early cases involving Freedom of Speech and Expression, my paper would try to emphasize the importance of Freedom of Speech and Expression in any society and political set up. Prior restraint in the form of censorship is really a big challenge to the right of freedom of speech and expression, because in such a case, the creativity of the author may not see the light of the day. My Paper would focus on the fact that, the freedom of speech is the first pre-requisite of liberty. It occupies a preferred and important position in the hierarchy of the liberty, it is truly said about the freedom of speech that it is the mother of all other liberties. Freedom of Speech and expression means the right to express one's own views and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. In present times, it is widely accepted that the right to freedom of speech is the essence of free society and it must be protected at all time. The first principle of a free society is a free flow of words in an open forum. Liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment plays a vital role in the development of that particular society and ultimately for that state. It is one of the most important fundamental freedom liberties guaranteed against state suppression or regulation.

2019

In recent times, we have witnessed a spike in cases of hate speech, delivered either by the politicians or by the media that has resulted in violence among the public. Sensational reporting and discourse on critical issues just for the sake of viewership and notoriety has resulted in the tarnishing of an individual or community's image. This research examines the work of various authors and columnists, published on reputable websites. It is done in order to check the contemporary state of freedom of expression and the critical conditions of working journalists in India. The research also studies the status of freedom of the press and the upsurge in instances of hate speech in current times. The purpose of the study is to answer how the Indian government is restraining the individual's right to express, how the Indian politicians and media are liable for hate speeches by presenting biased views and prompted news, respectively. It demonstrates instances of hate speech where a ...

This is a chapter from "The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution" edited by Sujit Choudhry & Madhav Khosla & Pratap Bhanu Mehta (2016) This chapter examines the place of the right to freedom of speech and expression within Indian constitutionalism. After reviewing the classical normative arguments for free speech, it considers how the domain of speech is related to colonial continuity, sedition, and public order. It discusses the scope of Article19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution with respect to free speech, as well as the Indian Supreme Court’s successes and failures in its efforts to expand the domain of speech. It explores the democracy argument as the primary justification used by the courts in free speech cases, and its consequences. Finally, it looks at the standards for determining reasonableness, hate speech, and obscenity, and argues that the idea of a deliberative democracy must be supplemented with the concept of agonistic politics to enrich and strengthen the free speech tradition that has evolved in the past six decades

This paper focuses on the curious case of Aseem Trivedi related to freedom of speech and expression in India. He is best known for his anti corruption campaign cartoons against corruption. The website of his anti corruption campaign Cartoons Against Corruption was banned by Mumbai Police in Dec, 2011. The paper analyses the case with respect to article 19 (1) of an Indian Constitution and sees its implications, related cases and the future prospectus.

2017

Freedom of expression in India has been enshrined in the Article 19 1 (a) of the Indian Constitution which the country conceived in 1950. It has been more than 60 years and the Indian State seen a lot of socio-political changes, on ideological, philosophical and physical level. With time, the conflict between the State‘s and the citizens‘ notion about various constitutional terms have come to surface among which the Freedom of Expression constitutes an important place. The conflict became visible and more explicit during the controversy in New Delhi‘s Jawaharlal Nehru University in 2016. This study aims to explore and understand the redefined notion of freedom of expression and its various limitations in the contemporary scenario of the post-Globalized India with the help of the narrative brought forth by the English News Websites‘ editorials on the JNU controversy. It‘s an attempt to understand how these major news organisations intend to perceive the validity of the free speech in institutes of higher learning‘.

The twenty essays collected in Pluralism and Democracy in India: Debating the Hindu Right focus on the impact of the rise of the Hindu Right in India on specic democratic values, pluralism, and fundamental rights, as well as the implications of their ascendance for the country's democratic future. The collection is based on a conference at the University of Chicago Law School in November 2005, held in the aftermath of the horric Gujarat riots in 2002, when Narendra Modi was the state's chief minister, and shortly after the 2004 defeat in national elections of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP, Indian Peoples Party), the political wing of the Hindu Right. Most of the essays are located within an earlier space of optimism rather than alarm; however, the introduction includes a mention of the mammoth electoral victory of the Hindu Right in 2014 under the steward-ship of Modi, a Hindu nationalist, and worry over what the future holds looms in the background. Edited by Wendy Doniger and Marth Nussbaum, the book draws together the views of economists, philosophers, political scientists, journalists, and scholars of religion. Several contributors focus on the critical role of history and how it informs the contemporary moment. Amartya Sen forcefully argues in favor of pluralizing history—the idea that there is never just one (Eurocentric) narrative, but many and more histories, and drawing on the liberal values inherent in an Indian past as a way to counter the narrow sectarian view of the Hindu Right. Akeel Bigrami revisits Gandhi's critique of liberal enlightenment, arguing that he was neither against Enlightenment values nor irrational, but against utilitarianism, drawing on a tradition of radical enlightenment in which spirituality had a productive role in the democratic polity. Similarly, noted novelist Gurcharan Das argues in favor of reclaiming the great texts of India's past to counter the association of these with right-wing ideology and its increasing monopoly over the interpretation of these texts. The role of the media in shaping the politics of speech and disseminating a majoritarian and masculinist agenda is discussed in chapters by Malini Parthasarthy, Arvind Rajagopal, and Antara Dev Sen, conveying an overall sense that the media has allowed itself to be manipulated and implicated in the propagation of a politics of hate. Others take up the role of violence against minorities, including women, and how this has been enabled by the Hindu Right's ideological agenda. Of particular note is the role of women as active agents of violence detailed by the reputed historian Tanika Sarkar. The contributions by U.S.-based scholars Paul Courtright and Wendy Doniger, who have both been targeted by the Hindu Right for their efforts at pluralizing and complicating Hindu traditions, reveal the inclusive and variegated features of these traditions. These include variations on the performance and experience of gender and sexuality that expose the narrow and more modernist account of Hinduism by the Hindu Right in the contemporary moment. The overall emphasis of the volume is that the ascendance of the Hindu Right has been enabled not only through the neglect by secular forces of faith, sentiments, and religion, a feature that is intimate and hugely signicant in the daily lives of most Indians, but also through the privileging of scientic rationality in the public realm at the cost of emotions, as brought out most clearly in the contribution by Martha Nussbaum. The argument is that this gap has enabled the rise of the Hindu Right, which has been able to ll this void. As a whole, the volume seeks to position the Hindu Right as a movement and ideology that is located in opposition to democracy, the rule of law, and pluralism. Yet this thesis, while

Freedom of expression', is one of the most important and central tenet of democracy,therefore most of the countries have made provision for its protection. It does not provide unrestricted right to freedom of expression, but the State has raised certain constraints and within the premises of law one can enjoy this freedom. Cartoon is an unique art of expression by which cartoonist expresses their ideas by a picture and few words, but some times it turns in to hatred, anti religious and defamatory expression. In recent years, Indian media (print and social) has witnessed a number of controversies relating to freedom of expression and the way the State have tackled the issues of the expression. The present paper offers a critical reflection on the recent cartoon controversies in Indian context and the state's response to these controversies. The paper examines in detail the constitutional dimensions of the freedom of expression and the approaches of the States in curbing freedom of expression of the media on reasonable grounds.

Since BJP led NDA has come to power the national scene is suffering a severe jolt as far as the values of Indian Constitution are concerned. Unlike the earlier NDA Government, this time BJP is having a simple majority on its own and is dictating the terms. This time BJP's parent organization's agenda of Hindu nationalism is in full flow. One after the other issue is being raised on emotive ground, undermining the genuine needs of society, bypassing the values of Indian Constitution. The latest in the series has been the one related to the issues around patriotism, freedom of expression and Indian Nationalism. Prelude On the back of the death of Rohith Vemula in Hyderabad Central University (HCU), [1] one of the most prestigious University of the country Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) has been targeted by the ruling Modi Sarkar. The frightening things which happened in HCU were just the beginning of attack on autonomy of universities, on the free thinking in a democracy. Rohith was forced to kill himself by the machinations of ABVP, which had brought pressure through a BJP MP on the ministry to get Rohith expelled from hostel and to stop his fellowship. Similarly the local ABVP unit brought pressure through its usual channels to intimidate and stifle the democratically elected student union in JNU. Prior to this the BJP led NDA government had tried to stifle the autonomy and freedom of expression in other educational campuses also. The places like Madas IIT, FTII, IIT Mumbai, and Hyderabad Central University had seen the central government's interference to suppress the democratic discussions and debates in these campuses. [2] In Madras; IIT Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle was banned, in Hyderabad Central University Rohith Vemula and his friends of Amedkar Students Association were harassed and expelled from Hostels, in IIT Mumbai the Director and the Board of Governor's Chairman had to resign to narrate few of the incidents. Freedom of Expression The suppression of freedom of expression was operative in all these places. In JNU it is alleged that in JNU some anti India; Pro-Pakistan slogans were shouted. Some doctoring of videos was done. On that pretext Kanhaiya Kumar, the president of the JNUSU was arrested and the charges of sedition were slapped on him. The original video also makes it clear that he did not shout these slogans. He neither shouted the slogans nor can anybody be arrested on the charge of shouting slogans. [3] The constitutional position as clarified by noted lawyer Soli Sorabjee is that incitement to violence alone can be termed anti-National. Interestingly the masked men who shouted the slogans have neither been arrested, no attempt in that direction is known. [4] Delhi police, working under Home Minister Rajnath Singh of BJP; went on recklessly to put the charge of sedition against Kumar. The lawyers in the court indulged in violence against those who looked like JNU