No additional curbs on freedom of speech and expression: Indian Supreme Court

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday in a paramount ruling said that no additional restrictions can be imposed on the country's fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, even in cases involving officials holding high offices.

A five-member bench comprising of Justices V Ramasubramanian, S. Abdul Nazeer, B R Gavai, A S Bopanna, and B V Nagarathna agreed on the larger question with regard to the imposition of additional curbs on the fundamental right and said that it could not be done.

The issue had originally gained heat in 2016 when Azam Khan a minister in the then Uttar Pradesh government had alleged that a ghastly gang rape incident involving a mother-daughter duo on a highway near Bulandshahr district of the northern Indian state was a "political conspiracy".

Add WION as a Preferred Source

Watch |India on path to position itself as global power

Emphasising the importance of "sweet speech" the bench quoted Tamil poet and philosopher Tiruvalluvar of the Tamil Sangam age.

Tiruvalluvar in his classic "Tirukkural" had written that the "scar left behind by a burn injury may heal, but not the one left behind by an offensive speech."

The bench said, "Though religious texts of all faiths and ancient literature of all languages and geographical locations are full of such moral injunctions emphasising the importance of sweet speech (more than free speech), history shows that humanity has consistently defied those diktats."

Addressing a suggestion by the petitioner they said that it is not always possible for a prime Minister or a Chief minister to maintain disciplinary control over their council of ministers.

"In a country like ours where there is a multi-party system and where coalition governments are often formed, it is not possible at all times for a Prime Minister/Chief Minister to take the whip, whenever a statement is made by someone in the Council of Ministers," said the judgement by four justices; V Ramasubramanian, Nazeer, B R Gavai and A S Bopanna. They said that when governments at time exist on "wafer thin" majority it is not always possible for the PM or the CM to drop any minister out of the Cabinet.

However, as per PTI, Justice B V Nagarathna who wrote a separate judgement differed on the question of whether the government can be held liable for disparaging utterances of its ministers. She said that the government can in fact be held liable if the statement can be traced back to the views of the government.

She added that public functionaries and people of influence due to the influence they wield owe a duty to the society at large to be more responsible and restrained in regard to their speech.

"A mere statement made by a Minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part III of the Constitution, may not constitute a violation of the constitutional rights and become actionable as Constitutional tort. But if as a consequence of such a statement, any act of omission or commission is done by the officers resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen, then the same may be actionable as a constitutional tort," said the apex court.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.