Table of Contents
ABSTRACT
Speech, the world’s largest democracy, is facing increasing challenges to the right to express differing opinions. The government’s responses to both peaceful and violent protests and opposition have raised concerns about free speech. As a result, many individuals and groups are now self-censoring, fearing the repercussions of speaking out.
I. Introduction
The growing intolerance towards differing opinions in India has raised serious concerns about the health of its democracy. A strong democracy relies on the free exchange of ideas, fostering criticism, accountability, and change. However, recent actions by the Indian government have sparked fears that dissenting voices are being suppressed, making society less inclusive. For instance, in January 2023, the government launched a campaign to prevent citizens from watching a BBC documentary about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 religious riots.
II. Freedom of speech: historical background
During British colonial rule in India (1858 to 1947), the British government imposed four major restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. These laws targeted: (i) sedition, (ii) contempt of court, (iii) hate speech, and (iv) defamation. The Vernacular Press Act of 1878 required newspapers in local languages to obtain a license from the British government before publication. This law aimed to stop the Indian press from spreading anti-colonial views. The Indian Sedition Act of 1870 made it illegal to criticize the British government or encourage opposition to it. This law was frequently used to silence political activists and restrict freedom of speech.
B. Changing frontiers: The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution
In 1951, the Indian Constitution was amended with the introduction of the First Amendment, which added three new restrictions under Article 19(2). To understand the impact of this amendment, it’s important to examine how the Indian judiciary initially interpreted free speech. In earlier cases, such as Brij Bhushan and Romesh Thappar, the courts had struck down state orders that restricted certain publications.
III. Freedom of speech: contemporary scenario
The gradual suppression of dissent signals a steady erosion of democracy in a country. According to John Stuart Mill, personal liberty allows individuals to pursue their version of a good life, as long as it doesn’t harm others. This concept encompasses several key aspects: (a) the right to express oneself freely without causing harm, (b) the right to advocate for political changes, (c) the freedom to pursue personal growth and well-being, and (d) the right to expand knowledge and seek the truth. Mill’s philosophy advocates for complete freedom of speech and expression, stressing the need to protect this ‘passive’ aspect of freedom
A. Regulating the internet: selective oversight?
The Indian government has been accused of selectively regulating the Internet, raising concerns about controlling and monitoring online activity without sufficient transparency or accountability. Instances have occurred where the government blocked websites and online content without following proper procedures or providing clear justifications. The primary challenge to creative expression in India is not only religious intolerance, as previously mentioned, but also the weakness of institutions that fail to protect liberal values.
B. Regulations of intermediaries, publishers, and OTT platforms
Social media platforms offer both significant advantages and challenges. On the positive side, they facilitate the spread of information, enable the sharing of opinions, provide improved access to news, and serve as powerful tools for raising awareness. However, they also bring about issues such as hate speech, propaganda, cybercrimes, and the spread of fake news. Governments worldwide are grappling with how to strike a balance between these benefits and risks. In India, the government has taken steps to regulate social media platforms, often referred to as intermediaries.
Conclusion
A complex interaction between historical principles and modern-day challenges marks India’s journey with free speech. While the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, various laws, regulations, and societal pressures often limit this fundamental right. From the foundational debates during independence to the more nuanced battles of the digital age, the tension between protecting free speech and ensuring public order remains unresolved.
To address this crisis, India must find a delicate balance: ensuring national security and public order without suppressing the diverse voices that are the bedrock of its democracy. A strong commitment to transparency, plurality, and accountability—from both the state and private entities—is crucial to preserving freedom of expression. Only through this can India honour its constitutional promise of free speech and continue to thrive as a vibrant democracy.
