Last word
HCs and trial courts must follow SC's line on free speech
The Constitution is clear – you have the right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions. But like an Ashokan edict carved in stone, the Constitution's letter is only as good as the spirit of the institutions tasked with upholding it. In the Thug Life case, SC has once again struck a blow for free speech. While clearing the Kamal Haasan film's release in Karnataka, it has made it abundantly clear that one person's 'hurt sentiments' are not a reasonable ground for curbing another's right to expression: 'In India…there will never be an end to the hurt sentiment phenomenon. But for that, right to free speech cannot be jeopardised…' Three months ago, in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, SC had forcefully made the same point: 'Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.'
As the chief arbiter of the land, SC could not have made itself clearer in March any more than it can now. There's no way its word can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Yet, Calcutta HC told a 22-year-old early this month: 'Look, we have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you will go on to hurt others.' Then, Karnataka HC told Haasan: 'You or any citizen have no right to hurt sentiments of the masses…' And lower courts' views on free speech are generally even more stifling. This divergence of opinion within the judiciary has a chilling effect on free speech because there's only one SC above hundreds of HCs and subordinate courts. If free speech is a pillar of democracy, and a tenet of the Constitution, it shouldn't have to run the gauntlet with the hope of eventual salvation in the apex court.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email
This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
43 minutes ago
- Hans India
Seminar in Madikeri revives Codava demand for geo-political autonomy
A renewed call for Codava autonomy and tribal recognition resonated from the hills of Kodagu as the Codava National Council (CNC) organised a high-profile seminar near Madikeri, marking 35 years of the organisation's apolitical movement seeking constitutional and cultural safeguards for the Codava people. Delivering the keynote lecture, Supreme Court advocate and constitutional law expert Vikram Hegde underscored the community's long-standing demands, including geo-political autonomy under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, Scheduled Tribe status, language inclusion in the Eighth Schedule, and protection of traditional land, cultural, and religious rights. Referring to the Codavas as an 'animistic, mono-ethnic group with deep-rooted ties to their ancestral lands,' Hegde noted that the community met several criteria under both domestic law and international conventions on indigenous peoples, particularly the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). He argued for a 'holistic and historically informed assessment' of the Codavas' demand for Scheduled Tribe classification. CNC President N.U. Nachappa Kodava, who presided over the seminar, reiterated the community's call for a Codava Autonomous Region (CAR) within the Indian Union—akin to the Gorkha Hill Council or the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils. 'Our aspiration is not secession but dignity—through federal accommodation of our unique identity,' Nachappa said. Citing the dilution of Codava presence in Parliament since the 1967 election of C.M. Poonacha, the seminar highlighted how Kodagu's merger with Karnataka in 1956 eroded the political representation of the community. Hegde called for serious consideration of Constitutional mechanisms such as inclusion under the Fifth or Sixth Schedule or a new provision like Article 371 tailored for Kodagu. 'Asymmetric federalism is not alien to India—it is the framework by which we have protected many identities. Codavas, with their contributions to national defence and administration, deserve similar recognition,' he said. The seminar also addressed growing concerns over the application of general laws—such as the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Act and the SARFAESI Act—which threaten to undermine Codava religious freedom and land tenure. Senior Karnataka High Court advocate M.T. Nanaiah, supporting the CNC's legal initiatives, emphasised the community's peaceful advocacy over decades. 'Codavas have not resorted to agitation. They have used democratic and legal means. That alone deserves attention from the Centre,' he said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Land dispute case: Telangana HC reserves order on A Revanth's plea to quash 2016 FIR; order reserved till July 18
HYDERABAD: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana high court on Friday reserved orders to July 18 on a plea filed by former Congress MP and chief minister A Revanth Reddy seeking quashing of a 2016 FIR registered against him at the Gachibowli police station. The case was filed based on a complaint by N Peddi Raju, president of the Razole Constituency SC Cooperative Housing Society, alleging trespass and caste-based abuse during a land dispute in Gopanapalli, Rangareddy district. The matter is pending before a special court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the FIR, Peddi Raju claimed Revanth's brother Kondal Reddy and one E Laxmaiah forcibly entered around two acres of land claimed by the society, demolished a compound wall and other structures, and abused him in the name of caste-allegedly at Revanth's behest. The 2019 chargesheet noted that though Raju claimed purchase of land for the society, the sellers lacked clear title. Meanwhile, Kondal Reddy claimed to have purchased 31 acres in the same survey number in 2005, registered in his name. The chargesheet concluded that the accused trespassed into land in possession of the society and carried out the demolition. Counsel Nimma Narayana, appearing for Peddi Raju, argued: "Though the chargesheet was filed five years ago, charges have not been framed, and crucial provisions under the Atrocities Act were left out." He reiterated that Kondal Reddy used caste abuse, allegedly on Revanth's instructions. The judge reserved her orders and posted the case to July 18.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Kolkata HC stays Didi's relief to SSC staff sacked by SC
Mamata Banerjee KOLKATA: Calcutta HC Friday stayed till Sept 26 WB govt's interim relief for Group-C and Group-D employees of state-run schools who lost their jobs following a Supreme Court order on April 3. The state had announced monthly interim relief of Rs 25,000 for Group-C employees and Rs 20,000 for Group-D staff. Another section of candidates, who were waitlisted, moved HC for a stay on the scheme, arguing it "frustrated" the SC order. Justice Amrita Sinha held that the people whose jobs were terminated by the SC order could not be provided such support after the apex court had decided the issue of illegal appointments conclusively and opined that the appointments were a result of "fraud". Getting refund of money already disbursed to the beneficiaries would be a problem if the scheme was found to be in violation of law after the final hearing on a state review petition, she reasoned. HC also took note of the fact that the state welfare scheme was announced for a particular group who would not be doing any work. "Paying persons gratuitously, who are not serving the state but are either sitting at home or are engaged elsewhere, does not appeal to the court," Justice Sinha held. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pennsylvania: These Walk In Tubs Are Cheap (See Prices) Walk In Tub Discounts Learn More Undo HC stressed that the state had applied a "pick and choose" method for determining the beneficiaries of the welfare scheme. "There are two sets of candidates. One set comprises appointed candidates whose jobs were terminated and the other waitlisted candidates. Both sets are jobless now," Justice Sinha said, holding that the scheme for a particular group "intended to provide succour to the tainted terminated candidates". Justice Sinha acknowledged the state's legislative competence to draft a welfare scheme but said it should apply equally. "Whether it is proper for the state to create a class of favoured candidates out of a bigger class of unemployed candidates is a matter to be decided after hearing (all) parties."
