<p>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.</p>

<p>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.&nbsp;</p>

<p>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".</p>

<p><strong>Watch |&nbsp;India on path to position itself as global power</strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-on-path-to-position-itself-as-global-power-548248/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>Emphasising the importance of "sweet speech" the bench quoted Tamil poet and philosopher Tiruvalluvar of the Tamil Sangam age.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Tiruvalluvar &nbsp;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."</p>

<p>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."</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/new-years-week-saw-indian-capital-delhi-guzzle-liquor-worth-263-million-548991">New Year's week saw Indian capital Delhi guzzle liquor worth $26.3 million</a></strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/stunning-zero-rhinos-poached-in-the-indian-state-of-assam-in-nearly-45-years-549207">STUNNING! Zero rhinos poached in the Indian state of Assam in nearly 45 years</a></strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>You can <strong>now write for wionews.com</strong> and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.</strong></p>


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.

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". 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." Also read | New Year's week saw Indian capital Delhi guzzle liquor worth $26.3 million 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. Also read | STUNNING! Zero rhinos poached in the Indian state of Assam in nearly 45 years 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.

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

<p>As fast as people connect to the glorious world of the Internet, it's clearly visible how some people are using social media for political use. Social media has become a platform for hate speech. In recent days we have heard a lot about freedom of speech. From comedian Munawar Faruqui to EX –Bharatiya Janata party spokesperson Nupur Sharma, many came into the headlines for hurting religious sentiments and their people supported them by saying "they have freedom of speech".</p>

<p>As we all know that “freedom of speech” comes under article 19(1) of the Indian constitution, and it gives freedom to every Indian citizen to speak and write their opinions. But here's a question: does it allow for hate speech?</p>

<p>To understand this it's important to know what hate speech is.</p>

<p><strong>What is Hate Speech? </strong></p>

<p>According to the Law Commission of India, hate speech has not been defined in Indian law till now.</p>

<p>However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech. Every word that is not responsible,&nbsp;speech that hurts any sentiments can be considered hate speech, and for that law works on some IPC sections to punish. Here Article 19(2) enters.</p>

<p><strong>Article 19(2) restricts freedom of speech</strong></p>

<p>India is a diverse and democratic country, where many religions, castes, and creeds live. Article 19(2) was introduced so that no one should be hurt, ensuring that no one can misuse their freedom of speech. This article is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. This clearly shows that Freedom of speech doesn't allow the spread of hate speech.</p>

<p><strong>How section 295(A) plays a Role&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p>A person who intentionally and maliciously attempts to offend the religious sentiments of any class of Indian citizens, or insults their religion or religious beliefs, is punished under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code-1860.</p>

<p>This Section shows how hate speech is not acceptable in the Indian constitution.</p>

<p><em><strong>(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)</strong></em></p>


As fast as people connect to the glorious world of the Internet, it's clearly visible how some people are using social media for political use. Social media has become a platform for hate speech.

As fast as people connect to the glorious world of the Internet, it's clearly visible how some people are using social media for political use. Social media has become a platform for hate speech. In recent days we have heard a lot about freedom of speech. From comedian Munawar Faruqui to EX –Bharatiya Janata party spokesperson Nupur Sharma, many came into the headlines for hurting religious sentiments and their people supported them by saying "they have freedom of speech". As we all know that “freedom of speech” comes under article 19(1) of the Indian constitution, and it gives freedom to every Indian citizen to speak and write their opinions. But here's a question: does it allow for hate speech? To understand this it's important to know what hate speech is. What is Hate Speech? According to the Law Commission of India, hate speech has not been defined in Indian law till now. However, legal provisions in certain legislations prohibit select forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech. Every word that is not responsible, speech that hurts any sentiments can be considered hate speech, and for that law works on some IPC sections to punish. Here Article 19(2) enters. Article 19(2) restricts freedom of speech India is a diverse and democratic country, where many religions, castes, and creeds live. Article 19(2) was introduced so that no one should be hurt, ensuring that no one can misuse their freedom of speech. This article is subjected to certain restrictions, namely, sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. This clearly shows that Freedom of speech doesn't allow the spread of hate speech. How section 295(A) plays a Role A person who intentionally and maliciously attempts to offend the religious sentiments of any class of Indian citizens, or insults their religion or religious beliefs, is punished under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code-1860. This Section shows how hate speech is not acceptable in the Indian constitution. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Does freedom of speech allow hate speech? Here's how section 295(A) affects it

<p>After the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review the restrictive orders imposed in the Union Territory within a week, Congress leader <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-pass-order-on-plea-against-government-formation-in-maharashtra-264525">Kapil Sibal</a> on Friday questioned Home Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jnu-row-protesters-in-mumbai-moved-from-gateway-of-india-to-azad-maidan-272640">Amit Shah</a>, asking what was the 'emergency' behind imposing Section 144 on August 4, 2019, and said that it cannot be used to 'suppress' the freedom of speech.<br />
<br />
Addressing a press conference at the Congress headquarters, Sibal said, "I want to ask the Home Minister (Amit Shah) that what was the emergency on August 4? You cannot use <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-section-144-extended-for-security-in-ayodhya-till-25-february-270783">Section 144</a> to suppress freedom of speech. I want to tell the Home Minister, the government that if it will listen to the voice of people, it will always remain in governance."<br />
<br />
The top court while hearing the petitions challenging restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir stated that the right to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/protests-in-the-times-of-internet-shutdowns-271396">access the internet</a> is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.<br />
<br />
"Today the Supreme Court has given a historic <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-orders-review-on-all-restrictive-orders-in-jammu-and-kashmir-after-article-370-abrogation-273307">verdict</a> in the matter of Jammu and Kashmir, the citizens of the country were worried that the people do not know about the situation in Kashmir. No one was able to get out of the house, there was no communication, that is why we had filed a petition and stated that Section 144 should be reviewed," said Sibal.<br />
<br />
"The court has clearly stated that whatever order regarding the imposition of Section 144, the Jammu and Kashmir administration should put in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/envoys-term-srinagar-interaction-with-locals-positive-internet-restoration-peace-dominate-the-meet-273264">public domain</a> so that people can challenge it if they want to. Moreover, the decision to suspend internet services cannot be made for an indefinite time," he added.<br />
<br />
The top court said that Kashmir has seen a lot of violence and that it will try to maintain a balance between human rights and freedoms with the issue of security.<br />
It also directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review the restrictive orders imposed in the region within a week. "The citizens should be provided highest security and liberty,' the apex court said.<br />
<br />
The top court made observations and issued directions while pronouncing the verdict on a number of petitions challenging the restrictions and internet blockade imposed in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jammu-kashmir-is-now-corruption-free-mukhtar-abbas-naqvi-273161">Jammu and Kashmir</a> after the abrogation of Article 370 in August last year.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court had on November 27 reserved the judgment on a batch of petitions challenging restrictions imposed on communication, media and telephone services in Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to revocation of Article 370.<br />
<br />
The court heard the petitions filed by various petitioners including <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/assams-aiudf-protests-against-citizenship-amendment-bill-in-delhi-267164">Ghulam Nabi Azad</a> and Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin.<br />
.<br />
The petitions were filed after the central government scrapped Article 370 in August and bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.<br />
<br />
Following this, phone lines and the internet were blocked in the region. The government had, however, contended that it has progressively eased restrictions.<br />
<br />
Speaking about the delegation of 15 <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/around-15-foreign-envoys-to-tour-jammu-and-kashmir-on-thursday-eu-envoys-next-273050">foreign envoys</a>, who are on a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir, Sibal took a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and raised a question about his 'attachment' with the foreigners.</p>

<p><strong>Watch:&nbsp;Foreign envoys in Jammu today</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/foreign-envoys-in-jammu-today-273338/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>"I want to ask the Prime Minister that why are you so attached to the foreign people and not the people of this country? Get open with the people of India too and get transparent. Let us also visit, why do you trust others and not us?" said Sibal.<br />
<br />
A delegation of 15 foreign envoys, who are on a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir, met civil society representatives and community leaders in Jammu on Friday.<br />
The delegation had arrived in Jammu and Kashmir on Thursday and met political leaders and senior Army officials in Srinagar.</p>


After the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review the restrictive orders imposed in the Union Territory within a week, Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Friday questioned Home Minister Amit Shah, asking what was the 'emergency' behind imposing Section 144 on August 4, 2019, and said that it cannot be used to 'suppress' the freedom of speech.

After the Supreme Court on Friday directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review the restrictive orders imposed in the Union Territory within a week, Congress leader Kapil Sibal on Friday questioned Home Minister Amit Shah, asking what was the 'emergency' behind imposing Section 144 on August 4, 2019, and said that it cannot be used to 'suppress' the freedom of speech. Addressing a press conference at the Congress headquarters, Sibal said, "I want to ask the Home Minister (Amit Shah) that what was the emergency on August 4? You cannot use Section 144 to suppress freedom of speech. I want to tell the Home Minister, the government that if it will listen to the voice of people, it will always remain in governance." The top court while hearing the petitions challenging restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir stated that the right to access the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. "Today the Supreme Court has given a historic verdict in the matter of Jammu and Kashmir, the citizens of the country were worried that the people do not know about the situation in Kashmir. No one was able to get out of the house, there was no communication, that is why we had filed a petition and stated that Section 144 should be reviewed," said Sibal. "The court has clearly stated that whatever order regarding the imposition of Section 144, the Jammu and Kashmir administration should put in the public domain so that people can challenge it if they want to. Moreover, the decision to suspend internet services cannot be made for an indefinite time," he added. The top court said that Kashmir has seen a lot of violence and that it will try to maintain a balance between human rights and freedoms with the issue of security. It also directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to review the restrictive orders imposed in the region within a week. "The citizens should be provided highest security and liberty,' the apex court said. The top court made observations and issued directions while pronouncing the verdict on a number of petitions challenging the restrictions and internet blockade imposed in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Article 370 in August last year. The Supreme Court had on November 27 reserved the judgment on a batch of petitions challenging restrictions imposed on communication, media and telephone services in Jammu and Kashmir pursuant to revocation of Article 370. The court heard the petitions filed by various petitioners including Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin. . The petitions were filed after the central government scrapped Article 370 in August and bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Following this, phone lines and the internet were blocked in the region. The government had, however, contended that it has progressively eased restrictions. Speaking about the delegation of 15 foreign envoys, who are on a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir, Sibal took a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and raised a question about his 'attachment' with the foreigners. Watch: Foreign envoys in Jammu today × "I want to ask the Prime Minister that why are you so attached to the foreign people and not the people of this country? Get open with the people of India too and get transparent. Let us also visit, why do you trust others and not us?" said Sibal. A delegation of 15 foreign envoys, who are on a two-day visit to Jammu and Kashmir, met civil society representatives and community leaders in Jammu on Friday. The delegation had arrived in Jammu and Kashmir on Thursday and met political leaders and senior Army officials in Srinagar.

Section 144 cannot be used to suppress 'freedom of Speech': Kapil Sibal

<p>The film Padmavati has raised much rubble in India. While everyone is talking about Rani Padmavati&#39;s pride and honour, no one is telling that Allaudin was a brutal emperor. For the sake of better historical perspective, it is crucial to discuss what was the condition of India during the time of Khilji rule and why Padmavati did Jauhar. Without reading about Khilji and Padmavati&#39;s history, it is difficult to know about the controversy.</p>

<p>My argument is, Allaudin Khilji was not a glamorous king. Instead, he was a brutal one. I am sure that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has not done any homework to establish this.</p>

<p>Without knowing the history, it is difficult to understand the present situation.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Recently, Mr Bhansali showed his movie to a few media persons and it has become an issue now. &nbsp;How can he, in a special screening, show the movie to a group of people of his preference without getting the certificate? Even the Rajput communities who are protesting against the movie wanted such special screening but Mr Bhansali never had time for that.</p>

<p>This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. So many people have entered the controversy now. Even those who were not even popular have become popular now. Such people are doing things like threatening Deepika and announcing a bounty of 10cr on Mr Bhansali. These people, particularly, Lokendra Singh Kalvi is looking only for cheap publicity.</p>

<p>Actually, this has become the easiest way to appear on TV. As soon as the people have given the statement, then immediately he will become the hero on media and he will start appearing on news debates. Using such foul language makes them celebrity overnight and even media helps them.</p>

<p>How Mr Bhansali has portrayed Khilji will become clear only after watching the movie. To understand his personality, we have to read about him in various popular books on him written by famous historians.</p>

<p>There is this book, &#39;Khilji Kalin Bharat&#39; written by world-renowned historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, which has the documented the history from 1290 to 1320.</p>

<p>This book incorporates translation of Ziauddin Barni, Amir Khusrow, Emasi (or Imasi), Yahya, Ibn Battuta, Farishta and Abdullah.</p>

<p>Historians are unanimous about the fact that Khilji was a cruel ruler. He has killed many to acquire and invade. For Allaudin, beheading and torturing someone was a game. There was a huge section of society which was suffering during his rule. After reading the book it is very clear that Khilji is even more dangerous than ISIS leader Baghdadi and Taliban terrorists.</p>

<p>700 years ago Rani Padmavati did Jauhar. The release has been postponed but still, Karni Sena wants the special screening for themselves. Rajput communities are not trusting Mr Bhansali on the content of the movie.</p>

<p>This row is not going to end anytime sooner. History has a portrayal of Padmavati&#39;s Jauhar and Khilji&#39;s brutality.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi&#39;s Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In medieval history, killing innocents was very common to win the throne.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi&#39;s Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. He killed both of Jalaluddin&#39;s sons, its written on page 46 of Rizvi&#39;s book. Khilji also killed one of his cousin Akat Khan by beheading him.</p>

<p>Allaudin never respected any religion, something which Rizvi mentions again on page 47 of his book.</p>

<p>Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi also mentioned about Allaudin&#39;s brutality and said that he did all notorious things to save his power.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/image-1-20171124014537.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>&#39;Khalji Kaleen Bharat&#39;, a book written by Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi. (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>On page 29, there is a mention that there was a Hindu deity made of brass metal; it was kept in a temple in Madhya Pradesh that was destroyed and the metal was converted into various things and was sent to Delhi.</p>

<p>Also on page 68, its mentioned that during the rule of Khilji, he made various policies to suppress Hindus.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If Mr Bhansali has taken all the points from history and uses Padmavati&#39;s name, then he has to take care of many other things written in history books, and after knowing all the things only he must glamourise the character of Khilji.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There are many people who are supporting their argument by saying that it is freedom of expression and speech. Article 19(1) gives freedom of speech but same way article 19(2) says Indian security and integrity must be kept in mind while talking about freedom of speech and expression.</p>

<p>It means freedom of expression is good but one must know his responsibilities and should act with maturity.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)</em></p>


History must not be distorted in the name of 'Freedom of Expression', characters who have dark history, such as Alauddin Khilji must not be glamourised.

The film Padmavati has raised much rubble in India. While everyone is talking about Rani Padmavati's pride and honour, no one is telling that Allaudin was a brutal emperor. For the sake of better historical perspective, it is crucial to discuss what was the condition of India during the time of Khilji rule and why Padmavati did Jauhar. Without reading about Khilji and Padmavati's history, it is difficult to know about the controversy. My argument is, Allaudin Khilji was not a glamorous king. Instead, he was a brutal one. I am sure that Sanjay Leela Bhansali has not done any homework to establish this. Without knowing the history, it is difficult to understand the present situation. This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. × Recently, Mr Bhansali showed his movie to a few media persons and it has become an issue now. How can he, in a special screening, show the movie to a group of people of his preference without getting the certificate? Even the Rajput communities who are protesting against the movie wanted such special screening but Mr Bhansali never had time for that. This controversy has given a platform to many others who are trying to politicise the whole thing for their personal agenda. So many people have entered the controversy now. Even those who were not even popular have become popular now. Such people are doing things like threatening Deepika and announcing a bounty of 10cr on Mr Bhansali. These people, particularly, Lokendra Singh Kalvi is looking only for cheap publicity. Actually, this has become the easiest way to appear on TV. As soon as the people have given the statement, then immediately he will become the hero on media and he will start appearing on news debates. Using such foul language makes them celebrity overnight and even media helps them. How Mr Bhansali has portrayed Khilji will become clear only after watching the movie. To understand his personality, we have to read about him in various popular books on him written by famous historians. There is this book, 'Khilji Kalin Bharat' written by world-renowned historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, which has the documented the history from 1290 to 1320. This book incorporates translation of Ziauddin Barni, Amir Khusrow, Emasi (or Imasi), Yahya, Ibn Battuta, Farishta and Abdullah. Historians are unanimous about the fact that Khilji was a cruel ruler. He has killed many to acquire and invade. For Allaudin, beheading and torturing someone was a game. There was a huge section of society which was suffering during his rule. After reading the book it is very clear that Khilji is even more dangerous than ISIS leader Baghdadi and Taliban terrorists. 700 years ago Rani Padmavati did Jauhar. The release has been postponed but still, Karni Sena wants the special screening for themselves. Rajput communities are not trusting Mr Bhansali on the content of the movie. This row is not going to end anytime sooner. History has a portrayal of Padmavati's Jauhar and Khilji's brutality. Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. × In medieval history, killing innocents was very common to win the throne. Allaudin wanted to win against the Delhi's Sultanate, he invaded Devgiri without informing Jalaluddin Khilji. Jalaluddin was his uncle and father-in-law. Jalaluddin considered him as his son but he gave him a terrible death. He killed both of Jalaluddin's sons, its written on page 46 of Rizvi's book. Khilji also killed one of his cousin Akat Khan by beheading him. Allaudin never respected any religion, something which Rizvi mentions again on page 47 of his book. Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi also mentioned about Allaudin's brutality and said that he did all notorious things to save his power. 'Khalji Kaleen Bharat', a book written by Saeed Ahtar Abbas Rizvi. (Others) × On page 29, there is a mention that there was a Hindu deity made of brass metal; it was kept in a temple in Madhya Pradesh that was destroyed and the metal was converted into various things and was sent to Delhi. Also on page 68, its mentioned that during the rule of Khilji, he made various policies to suppress Hindus. If Mr Bhansali has taken all the points from history and uses Padmavati's name, then he has to take care of many other things written in history books, and after knowing all the things only he must glamourise the character of Khilji. There are many people who are supporting their argument by saying that it is freedom of expression and speech. Article 19(1) gives freedom of speech but same way article 19(2) says Indian security and integrity must be kept in mind while talking about freedom of speech and expression. It means freedom of expression is good but one must know his responsibilities and should act with maturity. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)

Opinion: Alauddin Khilji was brutal; Bhansali should not glamourise him

article-191

Article 19(1), News on Article 19(1), stories on Article 19(1), articles on Article 19(1), Article 19(1) stories at Wion, Article 19(1) news, Article 19(1) latest news

article 191

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

Does freedom of speech allow hate speech? Here's how section 295(A) affects it

Section 144 cannot be used to suppress 'freedom of Speech': Kapil Sibal

Section 144 cannot be used to suppress 'freedom of Speech': Kapil Sibal

Opinion: Alauddin Khilji was brutal; Bhansali should not glamourise him