Reign Of ‘Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy
Only grounded, objective criteria - threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity - should govern permissible restrictions.
The Supreme Court has rightly slammed the Karnataka government and the state film chamber for siding with the enemies of free speech. The apex court was aghast that no action was taken against those who threatened violence over the release of actor-politician Kamal Haasan's movie, Thug Life.
The state government told the court that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film and also pledged to provide full security if the producers chose to release it. It was heartening to see in this case that the SC not just gave relief to the Thug Life makers but also wanted action against those who had issued threats.
The apex court Bench, headed by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing petitions on June 19 filed by the Thug Life producer and a third party seeking guidelines on hate speech and threats of violence.
Thug Life was scheduled for release in Karnataka on June 5, but got embroiled in controversy following Haasan's comment that the Kannada language was 'born out of Tamil." The comment was widely resented by pro-Kannada groups, which demanded an apology from Haasan. Taking a brave stance, he refused to apologise, despite the threat of imminent commercial losses because of the non-release of the movie in the state.
The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) also took a tough stand, saying that Thug Life would not be released without an apology from Haasan. When Haasan approached the Karnataka High Court, it chided him for his remarks and asked him to apologise.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it not only criticised the Karnataka government but also reprimanded the state High Court for having urged Haasan to apologise. 'There is something wrong with the system when one person makes a statement and everyone gets involved. Why should the High Court say 'express an apology'? That is not its role," the SC said.
On June 17, the Supreme Court pointed out that the rule of law requires a person to be able to release a film that has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The court warned the state that it could not allow 'mobs and vigilante groups to take over," asserting that public sentiment should not override legal rights.
It was only after the SC snub that the Karnataka government pledged to maintain law and order and ensure the peaceful release of Thug Life. The government clarified that it had not imposed any restrictions on the film's release and would provide necessary protection and security.
This was not the first case in which the adversaries of free speech exploited the notion of 'hurt sentiments" to justify censorship. Public intellectuals assist them by raising the wrong questions, by debating whether protests over a film, book, or song are justified, and by asking whether someone's feelings were really hurt. They should be asking instead: can hurt sentiments be a basis for banning anything?
Under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, freedom of expression may be regulated only by 'reasonable restrictions" for state security, friendly relations, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to offend. But nowhere does the Constitution permit restrictions based solely on hurt sentiments or feelings. The distinction is vital: while reasons can be scrutinized and debated objectively, sentiments are personal and cannot be uniformly measured or validated. Dictionaries define 'sentiment" as emotional attitudes or opinions influenced by feeling, and 'feeling" as unreasoned emotional reactions. By their nature, these are subjective—what deeply offends one group may leave another unmoved. Take, for example, the case of M.F. Husain: some Hindus found his work as hurtful, while others didn't.
It must be mentioned here that the anti-blasphemy law, Section 299 of BNS, is used to gag free speech. Section 299 (which was earlier Section 295A of the IPC) says: 'Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 299 is logically untenable as it criminalises speech based on feelings, which—as we mentioned earlier—are subjective. Therefore, it is antithetical to India's constitutional spirit as it imposes vague restrictions on freedom of expression.
The extant court cases are symptomatic of the systemic toxicity that sentimentalism has generated over the decades. Sentimentalism, along with its sibling sanctimoniousness, has supplanted reason in public discourse and political debate. Ranting, canting demagogues and intellectuals set the agenda, resulting in the silencing of dissent, throttling of creativity, and often atrocities against those who speak out—all in the name of soothing 'hurt sentiments.'
This trend must be reversed. As Justice Bhuyan said, 'There is no end to hurt sentiments in India. If a stand-up comedian says something, sentiments are hurt, and there is vandalism… Where are we heading?"
The reign of hurt sentiments must be dismantled from law and public life. Only grounded, objective criteria—threat to public order, incitement to violence, defamation, obscenity—should govern permissible restrictions. Otherwise, democracy will degenerate into mobocracy.
The author is a freelance journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
First Published:
June 26, 2025, 16:10 IST
News opinion Opinion | Reign Of 'Hurt Sentiments' Will Destroy Democracy
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Mumbai advocate moves Supreme Court against Raj Thackeray over ‘anti-Hindi' remarks
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking criminal proceedings against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray for allegedly inciting violence and spreading linguistic hatred against Hindi-speaking citizens in Maharashtra. The petition was filed by Bombay High Court advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay on Friday (July 18, 2025) and is expected to come up for hearing in the coming week. It calls for strict legal action under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and aims to curb what the petitioner describes as 'language-based chauvinism' that threatens India's constitutional values. The PIL alleges that Mr. Thackeray's recent public statements—particularly around the Marathi language—violate multiple sections of the IPC: Section 153A for promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of language and place of birth, Section 295A for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage feelings and Section 505(2) for making statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. The 114-page petition includes multiple news reports as evidence and alleges that Mr. Thackeray, along with his political party and its workers, has been involved in repeated incidents of mob violence and physical assault targeting individuals from other States residing in Maharashtra—particularly in cities such as Mumbai, Thane, Pune, and Raigad. The petition accuses Mr. Thackeray and his party of engaging in acts of aggression based on caste, creed, and language, labels such actions as anti-national. It further claims that these activities pose a serious threat to the sovereignty, integrity, and unity of India, and have continued unchecked and with impunity. Row over three-language policy On April 16 and June 17, 2025, the Government of Maharashtra issued resolutions introducing a three-language policy in primary schools. These decisions brought together two long-time political rivals—cousins Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray—who united in opposition to the inclusion of Hindi as the third language in schools. While their alliance is rooted in regional language concerns, the broader issue at hand reflects a long-standing debate over adopting Hindi as a national language. According to the petitioner, given that Hindi is widely spoken across many regions and relatively easy to learn, proponents argue it is a natural candidate to serve as India's national language. 'It is, however, disheartening to note that even after 78 years of Independence, Hindi has yet to be officially recognised as such. The petitioner therefore urges the Government of India to take necessary steps to declare Hindi as the national language in the interest of national unity,' Mr. Upadhyay said. The petition alleges that Mr. Raj Thackeray, in a bid to gain political ground ahead of the upcoming local body elections—particularly in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, one of the wealthiest civic bodies in the country, sought to exploit the controversy surrounding the introduction of Hindi as the third language in Maharashtra's primary schools. It claims that, in doing so, he has delivered a series of provocative speeches targeting Hindi-speaking migrants from States such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, who have settled in cities such as Mumbai, Thane, Raigad, and Pune. The petition accuses Mr. Thackeray of actively promoting enmity between communities based on place of birth, residence, and language—actions that not only disrupt social harmony but also threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the nation. 'Threat of violence' 'Mr. Thackeray's speeches have incited public unrest, turning what began as opposition to Hindi into the forceful imposition of Marathi on non-Marathi speakers in Maharashtra. At a rally held around July 5, 2025, titled Awaj Marathicha, Mr. Thackeray allegedly endorsed physical violence, stating that those who don't speak Marathi should be struck 'below the eardrums'. He reportedly mocked Hindi-speaking States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan as economically backward, questioning how Hindi could resolve problems in Maharashtra if it hadn't done so in those regions,' Mr. Upadhyay said. The PIL further claimed that Mr. Thackeray named Union Home Minister Amit Shah in his speech, misrepresenting his stance on language and employment. The petition accuses Mr. Thackeray of encouraging his party workers to assault and intimidate Hindi-speaking migrants, engage in incidents of mob violence, vandalism of shops, and targeted attacks in cities such as Mumbai, Thane, Pune and Raigad. Mr. Upadhyay said, 'One such case cited involves a businessman from Rajasthan who was allegedly beaten up in Mira-Bhayander for not speaking Marathi—an incident that sparked widespread protests from the local business community.' He is accused of publicly warning that such incidents were 'just trailers', threatening further violence if the use of Hindi is not curbed in Maharashtra. The petition alleges that in recent months, at Mr. Thackeray's behest, MNS workers began inspecting offices and business establishments to check if operations were being conducted in Marathi. In one instance, they allegedly stormed a bank and assaulted an employee for not speaking Marathi. Similar incidents reportedly involved a security guard and a Zomato delivery worker. 'Politically motivated' The petition further claimed that Mr. Thackeray's so-called 'Marathi pride' is politically motivated, aimed at consolidating votes ahead of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation elections—where a massive ₹74,427 crore budget is at stake. It accuses the MNS chief and his supporters of systematically targeting, intimidating, and humiliating Hindi-speaking migrants. 'Despite a formal complaint dated July 10, 2025, addressed to the Prime Minister, Union Home Minister, Maharashtra CM, Election Commission of India, and police authorities—urging FIR registration and even cancellation of MNS' recognition—no action has been taken,' Mr. Upadhyay said.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Cash-at-home row: Over 100 MPs sign motion to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma
With one day to go for the commencement of the Parliament's Monsoon Session, Union Minister Kiren Rijiju on Sunday said over 100 MPs have already signed a notice to bring a motion in the House for the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, crossing the required number of signatories. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Rijiju, who was addressing the media after an all-party meeting, said, 'the signature is underway and it has crossed 100 already,' and that the Business Advisory Committee, an all-party group that decides the agenda of the Session, will decide when the motion will be moved. A motion for the impeachment of a judge has to be signed by at least Lok Sabha 100 MPs and 50 in the Rajya Sabha, as per the Article 124 of the Constitution. Once an impeachment is adopted by either House, a three-member committee is set up by the Speaker, which will comprise the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, who will head it, and including a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is a 'distinguished jurist'. The government said it will bring the motion during the Monsoon Session and has received support from different parties, including the opposition, in this move against 'corruption in judiciary'. Rijiju refused to comment on when the matter will be taken up in the parliamentary session until the matter is passed by the BAC with the Chair's approval. Formerly serving in the Delhi High Court, Justice Yashwant Varma has been at the centre of controversy since March 14, when fire personnel discovered wads of half-burnt cash at his official residence in the national capital after a fire broke out there. The then-CJI Sanjeev Khanna constituted a three-member committee of High Court judges to investigate the matter, and on March 20, the SC Collegium proposed that Justice Varma be transferred to the Allahabad High Court. Following the submission of the committee's 64-page report on May 4 — which found credence in the allegation of cash being found at his official residence — CJI Khanna sought Varma's resignation, which the High Court judge refused. Khanna then forwarded the report, along with Justice Varma's reply, to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Khanna reportedly recommended to the President to initiate the process to remove Varma. Varma has been kept off judicial work since his transfer to the Allahabad High Court. Protesting the allegations, he has moved the top court against the committee's findings, saying that mere recovery of cash does not establish his culpability.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
FairPoint: It cannot be about 'patak patak-dubo dubo ke maarenge'
New Delhi: Imagine you are walking down the street in Mumbai or Bengaluru or Chennai, minding your own business, when a stranger approaches you and demands that you speak in Marathi, Tamil, Bengali, or Kannada -- languages you may not even understand. When you fail to respond in the local tongue, you are suddenly slapped, abused, and humiliated. Worse still, the entire incident is recorded on a mobile phone, and within minutes, the clip is shared widely on social media, turning your distress into viral content for public entertainment or political mileage. It may sound dystopian, but such scenarios are happening in cities like Mumbai and states like Karnataka. Language, a simple medium of communication, is fast turning into a volatile political weapon -- a trigger for outrage, violence, and social division. Language pride is an emotionally and deeply sensitive issue across many parts of India. Chief Ministers like M.K. Stalin in Tamil Nadu, Siddaramaiah in Karnataka, Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, and the Thackeray cousins in Maharashtra are all acutely aware of its potency. For politicians like them, language is not just about culture or identity -- it is a political instrument capable of stirring mass sentiments, consolidating regional vote banks, and even polarising electorates. India has a long and complex history of language politics. From the anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu during the 1960s to contemporary protests against language imposition, linguistic identity has consistently been at the centre of regional political mobilisation. The emotional appeal of "mother tongue pride" is a tried and tested formula to whip up public support. The recent developments in Mumbai are a case in point. With the once-powerful Thackeray cousins -- Uddhav and Raj -- struggling to remain relevant in Maharashtra's political landscape, language pride is being resurrected as a lifeline. Their public reconciliation signals an attempt to regain political ground by becoming the self-appointed custodians of Marathi identity. However, the people of Maharashtra are not naive. They understand that this sudden display of unity is less about shared vision and more about shared desperation. The cousins have seen their influence wane considerably. Uddhav Thackeray, despite briefly serving as the Chief Minister, was largely perceived as a compromise candidate rather than a leader with mass appeal. The 2024 Assembly election results further underlined the shrinking support base for his faction. Now, with the crucial Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) elections looming -- a contest over a civic body with a staggering Rs 70,000 crore budget -- the stakes have never been higher. The Thackerays have held sway over the BMC for nearly three decades, barring a brief interruption between 1992 and 1996. Retaining control over this massive urban apparatus is central to their political survival. But they face formidable opposition: the BJP, in alliance with Eknath Shinde's breakaway Shiv Sena and Ajit Pawar's NCP faction, is aggressively eyeing the BMC. After suffering a humiliating defeat in the Assembly polls, Uddhav Thackeray cannot afford another loss. In this context, appealing to Marathi pride and painting themselves as the last guardians of the city's identity becomes a convenient narrative to sell. It is purely political optics for Thackerays, and similarly, the language issue is an important tool for regional satraps like DMK's M.K. Stalin or Trinamool Congress supremo Mamata Banerjee. In Tamil Nadu, CM Stalin has taken the language issue to new heights, actively resisting the perceived imposition of Hindi through the National Education Policy's three-language formula. His party, the DMK, has historically opposed Hindi dominance, and Stalin continues this legacy. He has even popularised the hashtag 'StopHindiImposition', turning language resistance into a cultural movement that transcends party lines. Stalin's support for the Thackeray cousins' stance against Hindi imposition is not just symbolic -- it reflects a broader, pan-regional alliance of leaders to take on the Modi-led BJP and NDA at the Centre. For them, language is not just a cultural identity marker; it is a symbol of political autonomy and resistance to homogenisation. Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal has followed a similar playbook. She is driving the campaign as a protest against the alleged "harassment of Bengali speakers" in BJP-ruled states. She even took out a march in rain-soaked Kolkata in support of her so-called "cause." Her exact quote was: "What does the BJP think?... They will hurt Bengalis?... They are calling them Rohingya. Rohingya are in Myanmar, not here. 22 lakh poor migrant workers are being targeted. I appeal to them to return home. They will be safe here. The BJP is sending Bengali speakers to detention camps. Is West Bengal not in India?" Such statements are meant to create mass emotions, which she has successfully been doing. With the Bengal Assembly elections scheduled for next year, the language pride issue can prove to be very sensitive and decisive. Stalin, Mamata Banerjee, or the Thackeray brothers or all others -- what connects them is the understanding that language can rally masses, create emotional connections, and serve as a formidable shield during political crises. But the danger lies in crossing the line between pride and prejudice. When language is weaponised to provoke violence, intimidate non-locals, or suppress dissent, it ceases to be a cultural asset and becomes a social liability. Ask 48-year-old Babulal Choudhary, owner of an eatery in Mira Road, who was beaten by MNS workers for conversing in Hindi on July 1, and he will only talk about fear. Or ask anyone who does not know the local language and is thrashed for this, or ask anyone who is humiliated for not knowing the dialect or not having the right accent. It can be traumatic, but for the politicians, it is only about manipulating public opinion for power. India thrives on its pluralism -- its ability to accommodate multiple languages, religions, and cultures under one democratic framework. To exploit this diversity for short-term political gains is to endanger the very foundation of Indian unity. It's time for political leaders to understand that language should be a bridge, not a battleground. It cannot be "Tumko patak patak ke maarenge (you will be thrashed badly, again and again)" and "Mumbai ke samundar mein dubo dubo ke maarenge (We will thrash them by drowning them repeatedly in the Mumbai sea)."
