Murder, morality, and free speech: A killing that split public conscience

Indian Express

17-06-2025

The justification of social media influencer Kamal Kaur alias Kanchan Kumari's murder by Sri Akal Takht Sahib head priest Malkit Singh has raised a troubling question: is society willing to risk freedom of speech and expression in favour of moral policing?
Harjeshwar Pal Singh, assistant professor of history at SGGS College, Chandigarh, said the murder, allegedly committed by Amritpal Singh Mehron and his associates, was not just a criminal act but also 'an assault on freedom of speech.'
'No one in a society has the business to dictate what others should wear, eat, think, or how they should behave—and no one has the right to take another person's life for their views or lifestyle. It is unjustifiable and barbaric,' he said.
He added that the widespread online support for such acts reveals deepening polarisation and radicalisation in society. 'There are enough laws around 'indecency' and 'outraging public morality' that can be updated to include social media. The problem is these laws are often applied selectively, usually by the state to serve its own political purposes. Giving the state more such powers only strengthens its hand against the individual,' he said.
Kiranjot Kaur, member of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, said the Akal Takht head priest should have avoided making any remarks at all. 'But also, if anything posted on social media falls under freedom of speech, then why do we have a censor board? If the concern is that governments might use social media restrictions to silence criticism, that's already happening. Most mainstream media is toeing the government line.'
Social and environmental activist Gangveer Rathour also condemned the murder but questioned the inconsistency in how freedom of speech is applied. 'In 2022, Punjab Police booked an 11-year-old after his father posted a photo of him with a licensed weapon. If vulgar content is protected under free speech, why doesn't the same logic apply to that image? You can't show weapons, but you can show bodies? It's a delusion to think that restricting vulgar content will somehow empower the government to stifle dissent—it already does that regardless.'
Writer and director Pali Bhupinder Singh said, 'What the law doesn't prohibit falls within the scope of freedom of speech and expression. Even the censor board functions mostly to suppress critical voices—just look at the movie Punjab 95. It didn't block vulgar content, but it did block dissent. Censorship is always a tool of control.'
He added, 'People argue that mobile phones are in children's hands, so content should be censored. But the question is, why are children on phones unsupervised in the first place? And even if they are, who is responsible for teaching them how to use them? Moral policing—especially when done violently or by those misusing religious identity—is indefensible.'
Film and media critic Harpreet Singh said the murder was 'a shock to a civilised society' and pointed out that it has only intensified a pre-existing ideological divide.
'Kanchan Kumari made low-quality videos, yes, but there was clearly an audience for them. And while her murder can never be justified, the debate that followed has not been a debate at all—it has become a contest of entrenched opinions, motivated by hate, outrage, or ideological agendas,' he said.
He traced the trajectory of vulgarity in popular culture to mainstream media. 'B-grade cinema was once the domain of sleaze. But when Sunny Leone entered the family space via Bigg Boss, it quietly normalised sexual content. With smartphones and 4G, that boundary blurred further. Today, people from ordinary households create reels with similar themes. It's not just celebrities anymore—it's everyday content creators.'
'Between society, family, and discipline lies a delicate code that balances law, morality, and freedom of expression. But neither side is truly ready for an honest conversation—neither those who demand complete freedom, nor those who call for limits and censorship.'
Closing the debate, Punjab State Women's Commission Chairperson Raj Lali Gill said the Commission, in coordination with legal experts, will take strict action against those producing and circulating such material.
'The increasing use of vulgar language and explicit content on social media is having a harmful impact on children and society at large,' she said. 'We cannot allow the misuse of freedom of expression to promote obscenity. Those who are creating and profiting from such content will be dealt with under relevant sections of the IT Act.'
Gill added that freedom of speech must be exercised responsibly and within the bounds of social and legal norms. 'Both girls and boys should refrain from engaging in or encouraging objectionable content online,' she said.