Last word
The Constitution is clear – you have the right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions. But like an Ashokan edict carved in stone, the Constitution's letter is only as good as the spirit of the institutions tasked with upholding it. In the Thug Life case, SC has once again struck a blow for free speech. While clearing the Kamal Haasan film's release in Karnataka, it has made it abundantly clear that one person's 'hurt sentiments' are not a reasonable ground for curbing another's right to expression: 'In India…there will never be an end to the hurt sentiment phenomenon. But for that, right to free speech cannot be jeopardised…' Three months ago, in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, SC had forcefully made the same point: 'Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected.'
As the chief arbiter of the land, SC could not have made itself clearer in March any more than it can now. There's no way its word can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Yet, Calcutta HC told a 22-year-old early this month: 'Look, we have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you will go on to hurt others.' Then, Karnataka HC told Haasan: 'You or any citizen have no right to hurt sentiments of the masses…' And lower courts' views on free speech are generally even more stifling. This divergence of opinion within the judiciary has a chilling effect on free speech because there's only one SC above hundreds of HCs and subordinate courts. If free speech is a pillar of democracy, and a tenet of the Constitution, it shouldn't have to run the gauntlet with the hope of eventual salvation in the apex court.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email
This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
SC questions age restriction for surrogacy
NEW DELHI: Questioning the restrictions under surrogacy laws, including age limit on intended parents and surrogate mothers, Tuesday said laws shouldn't frustrate the wish of childless couples, widows and divorcees to become parents through surrogacy. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Instead, the laws should frustrate commercial surrogacy. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said present laws seem "harsh" to those wanting to take the surrogacy route to parenthood. The bench is examining provisions of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The laws set age limits for intended parents and surrogate mothers. An intended mother must be aged between 23 and 50, and the intended father between 26 and 55 years. Further, a surrogate mother must be married and between 25 and 35 years of age, have a biological child, and only act as a surrogate once in her lifetime. If couple in their 50s, 60s can adopt, why can't they have surrogate child, asks SC Laws allow single women (widowed or divorced) between ages 35 and 45 to pursue surrogacy. Appearing for the govt, additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati defended the provisions, saying the age bar was needed to ensure a child's welfare and to prevent commercial surrogacy. She said the limits were also set keeping in mind the genetic quality of gametes and urged the court to refrain from passing an interim order. The bench, however, said rationality was lacking in the provision and asked why a single woman could not go for surrogacy. "If she is a widow or a divorcee then she needs it more. Look at the void in her life... Rationality and object are absent. Look how harsh it is," the bench observed. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It said if a couple in their 50s and 60s can adopt, then why can't they have a surrogate child. SC reserved its order on a plea of three petitioners, seeking its approval to go for surrogacy as they are age barred. They submitted that the laws came into force in 2022 but they started the process much earlier as they froze their embryo in 2012 and 2016, and that they should be allowed to pursue. Bhati argued that there were multiple reasons for freezing embryos, and it might not just be for surrogacy. "Crystallisation of rights happens on implantation of the embryo in the uterus and not just on freezing of embryos," the ASG submitted. She said there are a large number of embryos that might have been frozen earlier but they cannot claim exemption from the law. The court, thereafter, reserved its order on the plea but hinted that it would protect only those who initiated the process before the laws came into force. In one of the cases, the wife is 58 years old and the husband is 64. In the second case, the wife is 53 and the husband 56. Multiple petitions have been filed challenging various provisions of the Acts. One of the petitioners submitted that the laws were discriminatory as it barred a single woman from surrogacy. "The restrictions are wholly discriminatory and without any rational or reason behind it inasmuch as the said restriction is not only infringing fundamental rights of the petitioner, but also violative of the basic human rights of an individual to found a family as recognised by the UN and reproductive rights, which have been recognised as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21," the plea said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Incident tarnished India's image, says Orthodox synod
1 2 3 Kottayam: The Episcopal Synod of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church condemned the arrest of the two nuns in Chhattisgarh. The synod, which began at the Church headquarters in Kottayam on Tuesday, assessed that the incident was another example of misusing the anti-conversion law across the country. The synod opined that secularism in the country was facing a serious threat. India's diversity is what sets it apart in the world. Unfortunately, the Chhattisgarh incident tarnished our country's image in the eyes of the world, the synod said. Christian missionaries are carrying out unparalleled mission activities among Adivasis and Dalits. The Christian community is doing notable service in various sectors like education and health. Those who view this with a hateful attitude are hindering the development of the country. The govt should take action against such religious fundamentalists. The fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution should be protected, the synod opined. The synod, which expressed concern over the continuous persecution of Christians in various parts of the country, also demanded that justice be ensured for the nuns arrested in Chhattisgarh. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gold Is Surging in 2025 — Smart Traders Are Already In IC Markets Learn More Undo Malankara Mar Thoma Church condemns attack Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church Metropolitan Theodosius Mar Thoma condemned the arrests of the nuns in Chhattisgarh. The arrest of nuns engaged in dedicated service in Chhattisgarh was truly a matter of deep concern and worthy of condemnation, said the metropolitan. "The innocent nuns, who serve selflessly without any religious or social discrimination, became the victims of an act that blatantly violates fundamental rights and undermines the core values of Indian democracy. It is the govt's responsibility to ensure justice through the country's legal framework and to make it accessible to all citizens," he said. Legal protection must be provided to everyone, regardless of caste or religion, and the innocent must be safeguarded. The nuns must be assured of full legal protection, released without delay and justice must prevail, he said. MSID:: 122977653 413 |
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Rahul Gandhi seeks contempt proceedings against Satyaki Savarkar in defamation case
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has filed an application before a Pune court seeking contempt of court proceedings against Satyaki Savarkar, grand-nephew of Hindutva leader Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, alleging repeated violations of judicial directives in the ongoing defamation application, filed by Gandhi through advocate Milind Pawar, accuses the complainant of wilfully disregarding court orders by failing to submit the original CD and an authenticated transcript of Gandhi's speech, which form the basis of the defamation complaint lodged by Satyaki Savarkar had earlier filed a criminal defamation case against Gandhi, objecting to alleged derogatory remarks made against V D Savarkar during a public address. At the time of filing, Savarkar submitted a CD and a transcript of the speech as supporting material. However, according to Gandhi's legal team, despite multiple reminders and a clear directive from the court, these materials have not been provided in a usable format. Instead of the original CD, a pen drive was submitted, which the defence claims is corrupted and unreadable on any device.'This has caused serious prejudice to the accused's right to effectively prepare and conduct his defence,' the application states, arguing that the complainant's conduct obstructs the judicial process and amounts to contempt of plea urges the court to take 'serious note' of the continued non-compliance before the trial formally begins, and to initiate contempt proceedings to uphold the integrity of the judicial his application, Gandhi also asserts that the defamation case appears to be part of a larger, politically motivated campaign to target him. He alleges that certain individuals affiliated with ideologies opposed to constitutional values—particularly those aligned with the RSS and Hindutva—are misusing the judicial process to file 'false and frivolous' cases against him across the country.'It is not the pursuit of justice but a deliberate attempt to harass and distract the accused from his public duties,' the application plea also notes that while several leaders from ruling parties have made allegedly derogatory remarks about past Congress Prime Ministers and leaders, the Congress has never retaliated by filing similar complaints. It claims Rahul Gandhi has consistently demonstrated respect for the judiciary and the Constitution, and that this respect is being exploited by ideological application reiterates a claim previously made by Gandhi that Satyaki Savarkar is the grandson of Gopal Godse, one of the men convicted alongside Nathuram Godse for the assassination of Mahatma Pune court has taken the application on record. The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for August 13.- EndsTune InMust Watch
