Freedom of Speech and Expression

In our Constitution, Article 19(1)(a) talks about the Right to freedom of speech and expression and is one of the epoch making fundamental rights in India. It has been placed at the pillar of fundamental rights so as to promote the need for finding out the truth. It not only allows people to come out with their ideas, beliefs, faiths and thoughts but also helps the masses to instill their confidence in democracy. This foundation allows the people to participate in polity. 

As a human being, it is very natural, rather indispensable to have communication as the means of exchanging information. This freedom is guaranteed not only to the citizens, but also to the media which serves as a medium of channel between the government and the people to disseminate the information. Media i.e. the press has therefore been referred to as the fourth pillar of the Constitution. Mr. C. Rajgopalachari, the former Governor General of India has said that “A free press is an essential limb of democracy just as the Parliament and an independent Judiciary. The best definition can further be traced out from John Milton has said that “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience aboe all liberties.” This is actually the voice of the citizens and the media which is working effectively and efficiently towards the furnishing of information among the 3 pillars of democracy i.e. the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Its pivotal role is not only confined to providing information, but to raise the concerns regarding the issues which can put people’s rights in danger. In today’s era, we are living in a world where information is provided not only in the newspapers, journals and magazines but the social media platforms have become the most common source for the people to raise their voice. So, a new dimension of this right has taken its place i.e. “The right to online freedom of speech and expression.”

Velitation regarding online freedom of speech and expression

There are many controversies regarding expression of ideas on social media which has been taken as an account of inciting hatred against a particular person or the nation. On 17th Nov. 2012, a girl named Shaheen Dada posted on her Facebook account regarding the death of Bala Saheb Thackeray due to which she was arrested under Section 66 of Information Technology Act 2000. The post was as follows; “Every day thousands of people die but still the world moves on………. Respect is earned, not given out, definitely not enforced. Another case was related to Aseem Trivedi, a cartoonist who had posted cartoons on his Facebook account showcasing the mockery of the Parliament with the caption “Bhrashtameva Jayate” instead of “Satyameva Jayate.” He was charged under Section 66-A of IT Act 2000 as well as under Section 124-A of Penal Code. But the Bombay High Court gave the judgement that there was no expression of inciting hate towards the state by posting of cartoons and it is just a criticism of govt. without any unjust or unfair method.

Right to information

The Right to information is also an important aspect of Article 19(1)(a) because it is the moral and obligatory duty on the part of the state to make people aware of the information which has a great relevance or is of national importance. This not only enables the coming up of new ideas but also makes people to believe in a democratic setup. The Right to information is the lifeline of Right to freedom of speech and expression. In Indian Newspapers Express, it was stated by the petitioners that import duty on newsprint will increase their costs and would lead to a direct effect on the circulation of newspapers which in turn would infringe Article 19(1)(a). Moreover, the petitioners also contended that the classification and bifurcation of newspapers also violates the principle of arbitrariness under Article 14. Television at that time was also becoming a popular source of providing information, but there was no regulation on what should be telecasted by the govt as it was totally on the whims of the govt. Therefore, Parliament came out with the Prasar Bharati 1990 to make its working more organized, transparent and free from restrictions. So, it was a time when there were no channels were there except Doordarshan. But today, private channels have been established and the producers have also got their right under Article 19(1)(a) to disseminate information. The most recent example of how this right has been violated can be seen in the perspective of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The people who were protesting peacefully are attacked violently. The Police can be seen doing lathicharge and throwing tear gas bombs on the students of Jamia Milia Islamia. This right has been severely impaired by the govt. in order to dispose of the agitation by the students.

Conclusion

I want to concluded by saying that right to express and speak is not only an FR but is the foundation of our human rights. Just snatching it away by unreasonable and mulish means would only lead to a friction between the citizens and the government. Our country has to still go a long way before we can actually say that it has the biggest democracy in the world.