
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
Indian courts today are not defending free speech. They are managing it. And in this curious inversion of constitutional values, we are witnessing a quiet retreat from the principle that animated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: that speech, even provocative, offensive, or unsettling, is the citizen's shield against tyranny — not its tool.
Once envisioned as the counter-majoritarian bulwark of our democracy, the judiciary now increasingly resembles an arbiter of decorum, demanding apologies and deference in the name of civility, sensitivity, or national pride. But when courts focus on what was said rather than why the right to say it must be protected, the Republic is left vulnerable to a new tyranny: that of sentiment, outrage, and the lowest tolerance denominator.
Let us begin with a chillingly ordinary example: a social media post by a 24-year-old man criticising Prime Minister Narendra Modi. after the ceasefire with Pakistan following Operation Sindoor in May 2025. Was this tasteless? Perhaps. But taste is not a constitutional metric. The Allahabad High Court thought otherwise. In rejecting the plea to quash the first information report (FIR), the Bench declared that 'emotions cannot be permitted to overflow to an extent that constitutional authorities of the country are dragged into disrepute'. That is a remarkable formulation. It subtly inverts the constitutional design: the citizen is no longer the source of power holding the state to account, but a child to be reprimanded for speaking too freely.
A validation of outrage
Instead of interpreting Article 19(1)(a) as a liberty that limits state power, courts have begun treating it as a licence that comes with behavioural conditions — conditions defined not by law but by the perceived dignity of public figures and institutions. Take the Kamal Haasan controversy in connection with his film, Thug Life. The actor made a remark about Kannada being a daughter of Tamil. The Karnataka High Court responded not by evaluating whether the actor's statement met the threshold of incitement, defamation, or hate, but by advising him to apologise to the 'sentiments of the masses'. This advice is corrosive. When courts suggest apologies for lawful speech, they set a precedent that expression must pass a popularity test. They validate the very outrage that threatens free speech, rather than shielding expression from it. An apology does not close the loop but only widens it, inviting further claims of offence. In Ranveer Gautam Allahabadia vs Union Of India, the 'digital content creator and podcaster' was confronted with judicial comments bordering on cultural supervision for his use of explicit language in a podcast. The court directed the Union to clarify whether such 'vulgar' language fell outside constitutional protection. Here again, the concern was not whether the speech incited harm, but on whether it offended prevailing norms of taste and modesty — a dangerously subjective threshold. Similarly, historian and a professor, Ali Khan Mahmudabad, was dragged into proceedings after sharing critical views on the optics of India using a woman soldier to explain its war situation with Pakistan. The argument was that his comments hurt sentiments. That it even reached court underscores the problem: invoking hurt feelings is now sufficient to invite judicial scrutiny of constitutionally protected speech. The professor's scholarly critique became a matter for judicial assessment and a special investigation to assess whether there was any dog whistle intent that played on the fragility of the audience.
A misreading
Two disturbing patterns emerge from these cases.
First, the judiciary is increasingly equating speech that provokes emotional reactions with legally actionable harm. This misreads the Constitution and the rationale of a democracy. The test for restricting speech under Article 19(2) is not whether it angers, irritates, or offends but whether it incites violence, hatred or disrupts public order. Second, by encouraging apologies and moral policing of language, courts create a perverse incentive. The more outrage a comment generates, the more likely it is to be litigated. This does not protect society. It emboldens mobs and serial litigants. It creates a market for offence.
This shift is starkly evident in cases that involve the armed forces. In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court denied the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, relief in a defamation case on his alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army . The High Court said that the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to 'defame' the military. But defamation, as a legal standard, must be carefully assessed particularly when invoked by or on behalf of state institutions by busy-bodies.
Likewise, in a previous first information report against a man using the word 'coward' to describe the Prime Minister after the recent military stand-down, the court saw no issue with Sections 152 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita being invoked — laws meant for threats to sovereignty and public mischief . These laws, meant for sedition-like scenarios, are being contorted to punish sarcasm and satire. It is telling that courts will routinely deny the quashing of FIRs in such cases, claiming that it is too early to interfere and that police investigations must run their course. But this abdication is neither neutral nor passive. For the citizen facing criminal prosecution, the process itself is the punishment. The system does not need a conviction to chill speech. A summons and a charge sheet do the job. The Madras High Court has occasionally resisted this drift. But this was more about narrative correction than structural protection of speech.
Courts in India must return to a principle-centric model of speech protection. Instead of obsessing over what was said, they must ask whether the speaker's right was violated, and not someone else's sentiment. Apologies should not be judicial recommendations. They should be individual choices. Otherwise, courts become confessional booths where speech is absolved not by legal reasoning but by remorse. And remorse demanded is remorse devalued — it empowers the outraged, not the rational.
The signal to the citizen
Moreover, as long as laws such as sedition or the ever-morphing public order clauses remain vague, courts must lean toward liberty. The doctrine of 'chilling effect' that is robust in American and European jurisprudence, has been acknowledged in India's courts but seldom enforced with spine. This is not just about high-profile speech or celebrities. It is about the slow attrition of constitutional confidence. When a YouTuber is told to bleep a joke, or a professor is dragged to court for a tweet, or a film-maker is told to grovel for linguistic pride the signal to the ordinary citizen is clear: express only what is safe, bland and agreeable.
But democracies are not built on agreeable speech. They thrive on disagreement — noisy, rude, even reckless at times. The test of a society's strength is not how well it tolerates politeness, but how it handles provocation. Free speech is not just about giving offence, but about withstanding it. If India is to preserve its democratic soul, it must restore the dignity of dissent. It must not demand the dignity of institutions at the cost of liberty.
Judges are the guardians of the Constitution, and not the curators of culture. They must protect the right to speak and not the comfort of the listener. Because when speech is chilled in courtrooms, freedom dies not with a bang, but with a sigh of deference. The new age of judicial sensitivity to sentiments is not a sign of progress. It is a sign of regression. It confuses harmony with homogeneity, and respect with restraint. Apologies should never be a legal strategy. And speech should not need blessings to be legitimate. Let our courts not forget that the Republic was not born from politeness but from protest. The Constitution came from the pen of a Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who also wrote, '…the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible'.
Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Concerning precedent continues': Kharge urges PM Modi to begin process to elect Lok Sabha deputy speaker
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on Tuesday urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to urgently initiate the process of electing a deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha, underlining the ongoing delay in the matter despite constitutional provisions for it. In a letter to PM Modi, Kharge pointed out that each Lok Sabha, from the first to the sixteenth, had seen the appointment of a deputy speaker in both Houses of Parliament, adding that it had also been a 'well-established convention' to appoint the person from among the members of the principal Opposition party. 'However, for the first time in independent India's history, this position has remained vacant for two consecutive Lok Sabha terms. No Deputy Speaker was elected during the Seventeenth Lok Sabha and this concerning precedent continues in the ongoing Eighteenth Lok Sabha,' Kharge pointed out. Terming it a highly concerning matter, Kharge underlined that Article 93 of the Constitution mandates the election of both the speaker and the deputy speaker of the House of the people. Constitutionally, he added, the deputy speaker is the second-highest presiding officer of the House after the speaker, with Article 93 of the Constitution providing for an appointment to the post. My letter to PM Shri @narendramodi on the urgency to initiate the process of electing a Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha without any further delay. From the First to the Sixteenth Lok Sabha, every House has had a Deputy Speaker. By and large, it has been a well-established… — Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) June 10, 2025 'The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members of the House to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker thereof and, so often as the office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker becomes vacant, the House shall choose another member to be Speaker or Deputy Speaker, as the case may be,' Kharge said, quoting the provisions under the section. With regard to the election of the deputy speaker, he added, Article 93 stipulates that the House shall choose one 'as soon as may be'. He added that traditionally, the deputy speaker has been elected in the second or third session of a newly constituted Lok Sabha. 'The procedure for this election mirrors that of the Speaker, with the only distinction being that the date for the Deputy Speaker's election is fixed by the Speaker, as per Rule 8(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha,' Kharge said. A vacancy on the post did 'not augur well for India's democratic polity and is also in violation of well laid out provisions of the Constitution', Kharge added, urging PM Modi to initiate the process without any further delay, keeping with the traditions of the House and the democratic ethos of Parliament. Jatin Anand is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. Over the last 15 years, he has covered bureaucracy & politics, crime, traffic & intelligence, the Election Commission of India & Urban Development among other beats. He is an English (Literature) graduate from Zakir Husain Delhi College, DU & specialised in Print at the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), Chennai. He tweets @jatinpaul ... Read More


Hans India
35 minutes ago
- Hans India
Piyush Goyal rolls out red carpet for Swiss firms to invest in India
Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal has invited Swiss companies to expand their footprint in India and take advantage of the country's dynamic and rapidly growing market. The minister held a meeting in Bern with the leadership from several premier Swiss companies across diverse sectors and urged them to see India as a strategic hub for manufacturing, talent, and innovation. The discussions focussed on enhancing synergies between Indian and Swiss enterprises, with a special emphasis on innovation, technology transfer, and sustainable manufacturing, according to an official statement issued on Tuesday. Goyal assured the business leaders of India's unwavering commitment to fostering a conducive business environment through transparent regulatory processes, a robust Intellectual Property regime, and pro-investment policy frameworks. Following these strategic discussions, the Minister chaired two focussed roundtables with sectoral leaders from the Swiss industry —covering biotech and pharma, healthcare, and precision engineering, Defence, and Emerging Technologies. These sessions, hosted with the support of the Indian Embassy in Switzerland, highlighted India's scale, affordability, and rising innovation ecosystem. The Minister called on Swiss businesses to leverage the dedicated EFTA Desk at Invest India for handholding and facilitation support. He reiterated India's willingness to work towards regulatory harmonisation and mutual recognition agreements, highlighting India's proactive stance on building reciprocal bridges to encourage Swiss and Indian investments. In addition to industry interactions, the Minister also met with members of the Switzerland Chapter of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). He lauded the chapter for their contributions and for upholding the high standards and global reputation of the ICAI, while strengthening the India–Switzerland professional and business ecosystem. Swiss industry leaders across a diverse range of sectors — including biotechnology, precision manufacturing, healthcare, automation, Defence, cybersecurity, and advanced materials — expressed strong confidence in India's trajectory as a global economic powerhouse and an innovation-led growth destination, the statement said. Companies commended India's unique strengths: A vast and dynamic market, growing middle class, world-class engineering and scientific talent, and a policy environment that actively promotes ease of doing business, IP protection, and technology partnerships. For many, India is not only a promising market but also an ideal base for manufacturing, R&D, and co-creation of globally competitive solutions. Several firms indicated active interest in forming joint ventures, scaling operations, and localising production to serve both Indian and international markets. From cutting-edge cancer therapies and cell sciences to industrial automation, fibre optics, space technologies, and digital security, Swiss companies underscored their alignment with India's developmental priorities and sectoral growth plans. The sentiment was one of strategic alignment and long-term commitment. Many participants described India as a natural partner and conveyed readiness to invest in its next phase of growth, not only to tap into domestic demand but to position India as a hub in their global value chains, the statement added.


Hans India
35 minutes ago
- Hans India
Post vacant for two LS terms: Kharge writes to PM Modi, seeks Dy Speaker election
New Delhi: Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge on Monday wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging him to initiate the election process for the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha, noting that the post has remained vacant for two consecutive terms -- a first in Independent India's parliamentary history. Sharing his letter on X, Kharge highlighted that Article 93 of the Constitution mandates the election of both a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha. He said the failure to fill the post during the 17th Lok Sabha and its continued vacancy in the 18th term "does not augur well for India's democratic polity" and also violates constitutional principles and undermines democratic tradition. "From the First to the Sixteenth Lok Sabha, every House has had a Deputy Speaker. By and large, it has been a well-established convention to appoint the Deputy Speaker from among the members of the principal opposition party," Kharge wrote, calling the current situation a "concerning precedent". In his letter, Kharge stressed: "The Deputy Speaker is the second-highest presiding officer of the House. This position remaining vacant weakens the democratic structure and is also against the well-laid-out provisions of the Constitution." He quoted Article 93, which states, "The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members to be Speaker and Deputy Speaker... and so often as the office becomes vacant, the House shall choose another member." Kharge also referred to Rule 8(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, which gives the Speaker the power to fix the date for the Deputy Speaker's election. The last person to hold the Deputy Speaker post was M. Thambi Durai of the AIADMK, who served during the 16th Lok Sabha (2014-2019). Calling on the Prime Minister to act without further delay, Kharge urged: "In view of the foregoing and in keeping with the esteemed traditions of the House and the democratic ethos of our Parliament, I request you to initiate the process of electing a Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha." The Deputy Speaker plays a crucial role in ensuring the smooth conduct of business in the absence of the Speaker, with equal authority to manage debates, maintain order, and decide on procedural matters.