India's courts balance rights in a diverse nation; Justice V Ramasubramanian explains judiciary's expanding role
Justice V Ramasubramanian
HYDERABAD: National
Human Rights
Commission chairman and former Supreme Court judge, Justice V Ramasubramanian, on Tuesday observed that courts in India are constantly striving to maintain a delicate balance between competing interests and diverse segments of society.
"India is home to eight religions, over 3,600 castes, and 1,600 languages spoken by 1.4 billion people. In such a setting, expecting a uniform acceptance of a single idea is unrealistic," he said. Justice Ramasubramanian was delivering the keynote address at a seminar on 'Judiciary as a guardian of human rights' held in the city.
He said that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, such freedom exists only to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights and sentiments of others.
"The moment speech begins to hurt or offend, the role of the judiciary becomes relevant," he noted.
Constitutional rights
Reflecting on the judiciary's role over the past 75 years, Justice Ramasubramanian said the Supreme Court had significantly expanded the scope of constitutional rights and made justice more accessible to the common citizen. "In the absence of legislation on specific issues, judicial pronouncements functioned as law until Parliament or state legislatures enacted relevant statutes," he explained.
He highlighted the evolution of Article 21 - the right to life - through progressive judicial interpretation. "What began as a right to life has come to include the right to livelihood, travel, dignity, and even the right to die with dignity," he said. He also pointed out that several non-justiciable directive principles of state policy have, through judicial innovation, become enforceable components of Article 21.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
In protecting ‘Thug Life', Supreme Court has protected more than entertainment
The cinema screen is no stranger to censorship in India — both lawful and unlawful. What has changed, however, is the form of silencing. Increasingly, it is not only formal state bans but the louder and more insidious forces of the mob — self-appointed vigilantes who threaten theatres, intimidate viewers, and police speech. The case of Thug Life, a Tamil feature film starring Kamal Haasan, is a troubling iteration of this pattern. The Supreme Court's recent intervention is not merely about one film, but a timely reminder of the constitutional bulwarks protecting free expression, and the enduring obligation of the state to uphold them. The Supreme Court is presently seized of a petition filed by one Mahesh Reddy, who sought protection for the film's screening in Karnataka. Despite receiving certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), the film could not be released in the state. The reason: Pro-Kannada groups issued threats of violence in response to Haasan's recent public remark that Kannada was born out of Tamil. This provoked an intense backlash, and theatre owners, fearing arson and protest, pulled the film. Not only did the Karnataka High Court, when approached, fail to dismiss the 'extra-judicial ban' in the State, but shockingly nudged Haasan to apologise — a move that the Supreme Court found wholly inappropriate. In transferring the matter from the High Court to itself, the bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, on June 17, made it abundantly clear that law and order cannot be hijacked by public sentiment. 'We can't allow mobs to take over,' the Court said. That statement, though directed at the Karnataka state government, reverberates far beyond this individual case. This is not the first time that India's highest court has come to the rescue of filmmakers facing illegal censorship. Nor is this the first time that states, despite repeated judicial warnings, have failed in their constitutional duties. In Union of India v. K M Shankarappa (2001), the Court laid down the principle in no uncertain terms: Once an expert body such as the CBFC has considered the impact of a film on the public and cleared it, it is no excuse to cite law and order problems by the state governments. The job of the respective states is to protect expression, not shrink from it. 'The executive cannot sit in appeal or revision over [a certification],' the Court warned. Yet, time and again, states have violated this boundary. In 2011, Aarakshan, a film starring Amitabh Bachchan addressing caste-based reservation, was banned in Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh despite CBFC clearance. The Supreme Court intervened, noting the state's duty was not to muzzle expression but to maintain law and order. In 2018, the Padmaavat controversy unfolded similarly, as several states rushed to ban the film due to community outrage. The Court stepped in again, reiterating that once a CBFC certificate is granted, the presumption is that all constitutional standards, including concerns around public order, have already been accounted for. More recently, in 2023, the film The Kerala Story faced a blanket ban in West Bengal and a de facto ban in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court stayed the West Bengal order and directed Tamil Nadu to ensure security for screenings. It also recommended a disclaimer to address concerns regarding the film's factual accuracy, but refused to entertain demands for a ban. It was, as always, a call to protect speech, not please sentiment. The common thread in all these cases, including Thug Life, is not the controversy over content, but the constitutional clarity on process. The law places faith in a regulatory framework. The CBFC, supported by a statutorily empowered Appellate Tribunal for appeals, is tasked with certifying films. When a film passes that test, no state government can step in to unilaterally nullify it, either directly or by failing to prevent others from doing so. When the law protects cinema, it protects more than entertainment. It defends imagination, dissent, and truth-telling. In a nation as diverse and fraught as ours, films do what few institutions can: They provoke thought, evoke empathy, challenge dominant narratives, and give voice to those on the margins. The Supreme Court has once again affirmed that freedom of speech is not an empty promise. It comes with the expectation that the state will act, not to judge or justify the expression, but to protect the space in which it can exist. As Justice Manmohan aptly put it, whether to watch a film or not is a personal choice. The right of filmmakers to express their views is constitutional. The right of the audience to disagree is democratic. But the right to suppress is neither constitutional nor democratic. The writer is a Delhi-based Advocate and research fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Cong takes a swipe at PM Modi, says Indian diplomacy is being shattered
The Congress on Wednesday took a swipe at the Modi government over reports that Pakistan Army Chief Gen Asim Munir would be having lunch with US President Donald Trump, and said Indian diplomacy is being "shattered" and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is "totally silent". Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh also said President Trump himself has "trumpeted" 14 times that he brought about a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, meaning he ended Operation Sindoor. "Field Marshal Asim Munir, the man whose inflammatory, incendiary and provocative remarks were linked directly to the April 22 Pahalgam terror attacks, is having lunch today with President Trump in the White House," Ramesh said. Is this why President Trump abandoned the G7 Summit a day early denying Mr. Narendra Modi a "huge hug", he asked. "Gen. Michael Kurilla, the US Central Command Chief calls Pakistan a 'phenomenal' partner in counter-terrorism operations. This is triple jhatka to Howdy Modi by Namaste Trump!" the Congress leader said. "Indian diplomacy is being shattered and the PM is totally silent. And tomorrow is the fifth anniversary of his (in)famous clean chit to China," Ramesh said. The Congress last week had said the US is constantly making statements which can only be interpreted to mean that it is hyphenating India and Pakistan. It had stressed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should leave aside his "stubbornness" to call an all-party meeting and a special session of Parliament.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
UK votes to decriminalise abortion in England, Wales, ending 1861-era law
UK lawmakers have voted to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales, removing the threat of criminal prosecution for women who end their pregnancies, a move seen as a 'crucial milestone' for reproductive rights. The House of Commons passed the landmark amendment on Tuesday (local time) as part of a broader crime bill, with 379 MPs in favour and 137 against. Supporters say the change will protect vulnerable women from being prosecuted under a Victorian-era law. Abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019, and campaigners have long urged similar reform in the rest of the United Kingdom. UK abortion reform seeks to end 1861 law Although abortion has been legal in England, Scotland and Wales since 1967, up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, or later in specific cases, the 1861 law has technically allowed prosecutions in cases that fall outside that framework. Specific high-profile cases in the UK spurred urgency for reform, with critics arguing that women were being penalised while undergoing deeply distressing situations. Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, who introduced the amendment, said prosecutions under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act were outdated and inhumane. Over the past five years, police have investigated more than 100 women in England and Wales for suspected illegal abortions, including women who had suffered miscarriages or stillbirths. 'This piece of legislation will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help,' Antoniazzi said during the debate. 'Just what public interest is this serving? This is not justice, it is cruelty, and it has got to end.' UK backs abortion decriminalisation In contrast to the UK's decriminalisation; the US is witnessing growing restrictions. Since the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organisation, states have enacted abortion bans—some with no exceptions after cardiac activity is detected (around six weeks). Nineteen states now impose near-total bans, with others limiting abortions to six to twenty weeks. For instance, in Georgia, a brain-dead pregnant woman was kept on life support until delivering via C-section due to a strict six-week ban defining fetal personhood and offering limited exceptions. The UK crime bill must now pass a final vote in the Commons before heading to the House of Lords, where peers may delay but not block it.
