Latest news with #Article19
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
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
News18
5 days ago
- Sport
- News18
RCB Marketing Head Nikhil Sosale Calls Arrest 'Illegal', Says Held On 'Siddaramaiah's Oral-Order'
Last Updated: The incident claimed 11 lives and left over 50 people injured during RCB's IPL victory celebrations. Nikhil Sosale, the marketing head of Royal Challengers, has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging his arrest in connection with the stampede outside Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium. The incident claimed 11 lives and left over 50 people injured during RCB's IPL victory celebrations. Nikhil Sosale approached the high court stating that his arrest in the wee hours of Friday was based on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's oral instructions and was arbitrary and illegal. Sosale has petitioned the Karnataka High Court to contest his arrest, alleging that an FIR was filed against him following a 'late-night" cabinet meeting and after the court initiated suo-motu proceedings. His counsel submitted that police inspector AK Girisha (investigating officer), who filed the FIR, was himself suspended. 'Arrest is the domain of the IO, and it cannot be done on instructions from a superior," counsel said. In his petition, Sosale alleged that his arrest was an attempt to shift blame for the incident onto RCB and its staff. He pointed out that senior police officers were suspended for dereliction of duty, while he, a private citizen, was hastily arrested without a thorough investigation to determine individual responsibilities. He claimed his arrest violated his constitutional rights, specifically Article 19, as it occurred at night. He also argued that the 'hasty action reflected a predetermined agenda based on the chief minister's directive, without a proper investigation of his specific involvement, disregarding natural justice principles". Justice SR Krishna Kumar adjourned the hearing to June 9 after a brief session, stating that interim relief will be considered once the state government/police files a statement of objections. First Published: June 07, 2025, 11:16 IST
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
RCB marketing head Nikhil Sosale says arrest 'illegal'; cites ‘oral instructions' from Siddaramaiah
Nikhil Sosale, the marketing head of Royal Challengers Sports Ltd, has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging his arrest in connection with the tragic stampede at Bengaluru's M Chinnaswamy Stadium, which claimed 11 lives and left 75 injured during RCB's IPL victory celebrations. According to a Times of India report, in a petition filed before the court, Sosale termed his arrest arbitrary, illegal, and politically motivated, alleging that he was taken into custody based on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's oral instructions following a late-night cabinet meeting. He argued that his arrest was a knee-jerk reaction, aimed at shifting the blame for the incident onto RCB and its staff, even before an investigation had clearly established individual roles. (Also Read: Bengaluru cop wears black armband, holds Ambedkar photo to protest B Dayananda's suspension, arrested) The arrest, carried out by city police in the early hours of Friday, came shortly after the High Court took suo motu cognisance of the stampede and sought accountability from the state. Sosale's counsel told the court that the FIR was filed by Inspector AK Girisha, who was himself later suspended — raising questions about procedural lapses and the legality of the arrest. 'Arrest is the prerogative of the investigating officer and cannot be carried out at the behest of political orders,' Sosale's counsel argued, adding that the decision violated his constitutional rights under Article 19, which guarantees personal freedom. The petition also cited a lack of concrete evidence tying Sosale to the logistical mismanagement that led to the disaster. The state government, represented by Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, countered that Sosale was detained while allegedly attempting to leave the country, a claim his legal team has not yet addressed publicly. After a brief hearing, Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar adjourned the matter to June 9 and said that interim relief would be considered after the government files its statement of objections. (Also Read: Lessons and questions from Bengaluru stampede tragedy that took 11 young lives)
Time of India
5 days ago
- Sport
- Time of India
Bengaluru stampede: RCB marketing head Nikhil Sosale says arrest is illegal; blames CM's directive
BENGALURU: Marketing head of Royal Challengers Sports Ltd, Nikhil Sosale , approached the high court stating that his arrest in the wee hours of Friday was based on chief minister Siddaramaiah's oral instructions and was arbitrary and illegal. Sosale was arrested by city police in connection with the stampede at M Chinnaswamy Stadium, where 11 persons were killed and 75 injured during RCB's IPL victory celebrations. Contesting his arrest in a petition before the Karnataka high court, Sosale revealed that an FIR was registered against him after a 'late-night' cabinet meeting and after suo-motu proceedings were initiated by the high court. His counsel submitted that police inspector AK Girisha (investigating officer), who filed the FIR, was himself suspended. 'Arrest is the domain of the IO, and it cannot be done on instructions from a superior,' counsel said. In his petition, Nikhil alleged that the arrest 'aims to redirect responsibility for the incident to RCB and its staff'. He noted that senior police officers were suspended for neglecting their duties and questioned the rush to arrest a private citizen like himself, before establishing individual roles through a complete investigation. He also contended that his arrest at night violated his constitutional freedom under Article 19. He argued that the 'hasty action reflected a predetermined agenda based on the chief minister's directive, without a proper investigation of his specific involvement, disregarding natural justice principles'. Arguing for the state govt/ police, Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty said Sosale was apprehended early Friday while 'attempting to leave the country'. After a brief hearing, Justice SR Krishna Kumar adjourned the hearing to June 9, indicating that interim relief will be considered after a statement of objections is filed by the state govt/police. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
6 days ago
- Sport
- First Post
Karnataka High Court denies interim relief to RCB marketing head Nikhil Sosale after arrest over Chinnaswamy stampede
RCB marketing and revenue head Nikhil Sosale had been arrested at the Bengaluru airport in the early hours of Friday in connection with the stampede at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium that had left 11 dead, and had approached the Karnataka High Court for interim relief later in the day. read more Nikhil Sosale has been Royal Challengers Bengaluru's marketing and revenue head since 2023 and is seen as someone close to Virat Kohli and wife Anushka Sharma. Image credit: X Royal Challengers Bengaluru marketing and revenue head Nikhil Sosale has moved the Karnataka High Court after getting arrested by Bengaluru Police in connection with the stampede that had occurred outside the M Chinnaswamy Stadium on Wednesday and had left 11 dead in its wake. Sosale had been arrested in the early hours of Friday at Bengaluru's Kempegowda International Airport, from where he was scheduled to catch a flight reportedly for Mumbai. Besides the RCB marking chief, three executives belonging to event management company DNA Entertainment were also detained at the airport in what was a joint operation between the Central Crime Branch and Bengaluru Police. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Sosale and the DNA employees were later taken to Cubbon Park Police Station, whose jurisdiction covers the iconic cricket stadium where a stampede broke out on Wednesday while a felicitation event was being held to celebrate RCB's maiden IPL title. The tragic incident left 11 dead and left several more – as high as 75 according to some reports – injured. Sosale yet to receive interim relief after moving Karnataka HC Sosale, a marketing and revenue professional with more than 15 years of experience in the sports and beverage sectors, had moved the Karnataka High Court contending that the manner in which he was arrested at the airport was illegal, arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights, according to Bar and Bench. In his petition, Sosale added that the arrest was made on the directive of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and was carried out before the police had even begun investigating into the matter, which he claimed was in violation of his right to freedom under Article 19 as well as principles of natural justice. 'It is clear from the timing of the Petitioner's arrest, which is evidently the result of an oral directive of the Hon'ble Chief Minister to arrest various RCB officials - that too, in the absence of any investigation whatsoever - that the Petitioner's arrest is motivated and an attempt to shift the blame of the tragedy to RCSPL and its officials,' Sosale's petition read. Justice SR Krishna Kumar, however, did not provide Sosale interim relief from police custody, stating that the Karnataka High Court cannot pass any order without hearing the State in the 'Nikhil Sosale v. State of Karnataka' case and has adjourned the hearing for Monday. 'I will have to give chance [to the State]. Any matter, wherever a person is in custody … which is moved at 2:30, I am not passing order without giving a chance. I cannot do it right now,' read the statement from Karnataka HC. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Karnataka government had setup a one-member commission headed by retired Karnataka High Court Justice John Michael Cunha to investigate the stampede, that has since snowballed into a political battle between the Bharatiya Janata Party – which has been in power at the Centre since 2014 – and Congress.
