Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression, Pg8

Key Highlights:

1. Indian judiciary increasingly prioritising public sentiment over constitutional protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
2. Courts are endorsing apologies and moral policing for lawful speech, especially when national pride or institutional dignity is invoked.
3. Cases cited involve FIRs and judicial scrutiny for speech critical of public figures, armed forces, and political decisions.
4. Shift from principle-based adjudication to decorum enforcement is seen as eroding the counter-majoritarian role of the judiciary.
5. Misuse of laws like sedition and public order clauses to suppress satire, criticism, and dissent.
6. Judicial inaction in quashing FIRs is viewed as tacit support for criminalising expression, leading to a chilling effect.

Detailed Insights:

• Trend of Regression: Courts have moved from protecting dissent to validating outrage, often recommending apologies rather than defending the constitutional right to free speech.
• Examples of Overreach:
• FIR upheld against youth for criticising the PM post-ceasefire.
• Podcasters and academics dragged to court for opinionated content seen as offensive.
• Freedom Redefined: Free speech is being interpreted conditionally — based on public sentiment rather than legal limits under Article 19(2).
• Institutional Reverence vs. Individual Rights: Courts are defending the dignity of institutions rather than individual liberties, e.g., in cases involving the army and the Prime Minister.
• Doctrine of Chilling Effect: Though recognised, Indian courts seldom enforce protections robustly, causing self-censorship among citizens. Way Forward
• The Judiciary should reaffirm constitutional principles, prioritizing Article 19(1)(a) over public sentiment.
• Avoid moral policing; focus on objective legal limits.
• Act against chilling effects by quashing frivolous FIRs promptly.
• Balance institutional dignity with individual rights; protect legitimate criticism.

Key Concepts Involved:

1. Article 19(1)(a): Grants all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression.
2. Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, defamation, etc.
3. Chilling Effect: The discouragement of legitimate exercise of legal rights due to the fear of legal sanctions.

Mains Mock Question:

In recent years, Indian courts have been criticised for prioritising sentiment over free expression. Critically examine this trend in light of constitutional provisions on freedom of speech.