By PTI
NEW DELHI: A hate speech denies human beings the fitting to dignity, Supreme Court Judge Justice B V Nagarathna stated on Tuesday.
In India, she stated, human dignity just isn’t solely a price however a proper that’s enforceable and, in a human dignity-based democracy, freedom of speech and expression should be exercised in a way that may defend and promote the rights of fellow residents.
Justice Nagrathna was on the five-judge Constitution bench which dominated on Tuesday that further restrictions can’t be imposed on the elemental proper of freedom of speech and expression of excessive public functionaries as exhaustive grounds exist already below the Constitution to curb that proper.
The decide, who wrote a separate judgement even whereas concurring on the bigger problem of further restrictions on excessive public functionaries, differed on numerous authorized questions together with the one associated as to whether the federal government might be held vicariously chargeable for the disparaging utterances of its ministers.
Referring to the competition of the petitioners that disparaging and vitriolic speeches made at numerous ranges of political authority have exacerbated a local weather bordering on intolerance and rigidity within the society, she stated it could be acceptable to “sound a strong word of warning” about it. “…hate speech, whatever its content may be, denies human beings the right to dignity,” she stated.
“A statement made by a minister if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the government can be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility, so long as such statement represents the view of the Government also. If such a statement is not consistent with the view of the Government, then it is attributable to the Minister personally,” she wrote in her separate 121-page verdict.
She stated democracy is without doubt one of the primary options of the Indian Constitution, it’s implicit that in a rule by the bulk, there can be a way of safety and inclusiveness.
Justice Nagarathna added that the time period ‘hate speech’ doesn’t discover a particular place in Article 19(2) (Equality earlier than legislation) of the Constitution and it seems that it doesn’t represent a selected exception to the liberty of speech and expression below Article 19(1)(a).
“Possibly the framers of the Constitution did not find the same to be of relevance in the Indian social mosaic considering that the other cherished values of our Constitution such as fraternity and dignity of the individual would be strong factors which would negate any form of hate speech to be uttered in our Country. This may be having regard to our social and cultural values. However, with the passage of time, a wide range of Indian statutes have been enacted with a view to control hate speech,” she stated.
Justice Nagarathna added, “Further, the Preamble of the Constitution which envisages, inter alia, fraternity, assures that the dignity of individuals cannot be dented by means of unwarranted speech being made by fellow citizens, including public functionaries.”
She stated the web represents a communication revolution and has enabled us to speak with thousands and thousands of individuals worldwide, with no extra issue than speaking with a single individual, at a click on or by contact on a display.
“Ironically, the very qualities of the internet that have revolutionised communication are amenable to misuse. The internet, through various social media platforms has accelerated the pace as well as the reach of messages, comments and posts to such an extent that the difference between a celebrity and a common man, has been practically negated, in so far as the reach of their speech is concerned,” she added.
Justice Nagarathna stated though the questions for consideration earlier than the Constitution bench have been with particular regard to the potential restraints on the unwarranted and disparaging speech by public functionaries however the observations made within the verdict will apply with equal power to public functionaries, celebrities/influencers in addition to all residents of India, extra so as a result of expertise is getting used as a medium of communication which has a large spectrum of influence throughout the globe.
“Any kind of speech which undermines the values for which our Constitution stands would cause a dent in our social and political values,” she stated.
The decide stated human dignity being a main ingredient below the protecting umbrella of Article 21 (Protection of life and private liberty), can’t be negatively altered on account of a derogatory speech, which marks out individuals as unequal and vilifies them resulting in indignity.
NEW DELHI: A hate speech denies human beings the fitting to dignity, Supreme Court Judge Justice B V Nagarathna stated on Tuesday.
In India, she stated, human dignity just isn’t solely a price however a proper that’s enforceable and, in a human dignity-based democracy, freedom of speech and expression should be exercised in a way that may defend and promote the rights of fellow residents.
Justice Nagrathna was on the five-judge Constitution bench which dominated on Tuesday that further restrictions can’t be imposed on the elemental proper of freedom of speech and expression of excessive public functionaries as exhaustive grounds exist already below the Constitution to curb that proper.
The decide, who wrote a separate judgement even whereas concurring on the bigger problem of further restrictions on excessive public functionaries, differed on numerous authorized questions together with the one associated as to whether the federal government might be held vicariously chargeable for the disparaging utterances of its ministers.
Referring to the competition of the petitioners that disparaging and vitriolic speeches made at numerous ranges of political authority have exacerbated a local weather bordering on intolerance and rigidity within the society, she stated it could be acceptable to “sound a strong word of warning” about it. “…hate speech, whatever its content may be, denies human beings the right to dignity,” she stated.
“A statement made by a minister if traceable to any affairs of the State or for protecting the government can be attributed vicariously to the Government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility, so long as such statement represents the view of the Government also. If such a statement is not consistent with the view of the Government, then it is attributable to the Minister personally,” she wrote in her separate 121-page verdict.
She stated democracy is without doubt one of the primary options of the Indian Constitution, it’s implicit that in a rule by the bulk, there can be a way of safety and inclusiveness.
Justice Nagarathna added that the time period ‘hate speech’ doesn’t discover a particular place in Article 19(2) (Equality earlier than legislation) of the Constitution and it seems that it doesn’t represent a selected exception to the liberty of speech and expression below Article 19(1)(a).
“Possibly the framers of the Constitution did not find the same to be of relevance in the Indian social mosaic considering that the other cherished values of our Constitution such as fraternity and dignity of the individual would be strong factors which would negate any form of hate speech to be uttered in our Country. This may be having regard to our social and cultural values. However, with the passage of time, a wide range of Indian statutes have been enacted with a view to control hate speech,” she stated.
Justice Nagarathna added, “Further, the Preamble of the Constitution which envisages, inter alia, fraternity, assures that the dignity of individuals cannot be dented by means of unwarranted speech being made by fellow citizens, including public functionaries.”
She stated the web represents a communication revolution and has enabled us to speak with thousands and thousands of individuals worldwide, with no extra issue than speaking with a single individual, at a click on or by contact on a display.
“Ironically, the very qualities of the internet that have revolutionised communication are amenable to misuse. The internet, through various social media platforms has accelerated the pace as well as the reach of messages, comments and posts to such an extent that the difference between a celebrity and a common man, has been practically negated, in so far as the reach of their speech is concerned,” she added.
Justice Nagarathna stated though the questions for consideration earlier than the Constitution bench have been with particular regard to the potential restraints on the unwarranted and disparaging speech by public functionaries however the observations made within the verdict will apply with equal power to public functionaries, celebrities/influencers in addition to all residents of India, extra so as a result of expertise is getting used as a medium of communication which has a large spectrum of influence throughout the globe.
“Any kind of speech which undermines the values for which our Constitution stands would cause a dent in our social and political values,” she stated.
The decide stated human dignity being a main ingredient below the protecting umbrella of Article 21 (Protection of life and private liberty), can’t be negatively altered on account of a derogatory speech, which marks out individuals as unequal and vilifies them resulting in indignity.
