Hate speech denies right to dignity: Justice Nagarathna

Discussing the contours of free speech, Justice Nagarathna also touched on the aspect of hate speech and said human dignity can be a ground for prescribing restraints on derogatory and disparaging speech.

The ruling pointed out that “the expansive scope of ‘hate speech’…would include within its sweep not only ‘hate speech’ simplicitor which is defined as speech aimed at systematic discrimination and eventual political marginalisation of a community, but also other species of derogatory, vitriolic and disparaging speech”.

“Hate speech, whatever its content may be, denies human beings the right to dignity,” she said, adding that it also “strikes at each of these foundational values, by marking out a society as being unequal” and “violates fraternity of citizens from diverse backgrounds, the sine-qua-non of a cohesive society based on plurality and multi-culturalism such as in India that is, Bharat”.

“Dignity”, wrote Justice Nagarathna, “is a part of the individual rights that form the fundamental fulcrum of collective harmony and interest of a society… dignity of an individual cannot be overridden and blotched by malice and vile and venal attacks to tarnish and destroy the reputation of another…”.

The judgment added that “having regard to the unequivocal declaration of this Court, to the effect that Article 21 could not be sacrificed at the altar of securing the widest amplitude of free speech rights, this premise can serve as a theoretical justification for prescribing restraints on derogatory and disparaging speech. Human dignity, being a primary element under the protective umbrella of Article 21, cannot be negatively altered on account of derogatory speech, which marks out persons as unequal and vilifies them leading to indignity”.

The ruling said that “there is an inbuilt constitutional check to ensure that the values of the Constitution are not in any way undermined or violated” and added “it is high time that we, as a society in general and as individuals in particular, re-dedicate ourselves to the sacred values of the Constitution and promote them not only at our individual level but at the macro level. Any kind of speech which undermines the values for which our Constitution stands would cause a dent on our social and political values”.

Justice Nagarathna said that “every citizen of India must consciously be restrained in speech, and exercise the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) only in the sense that it was intended by the framers of the Constitution, to be exercised. This is the true content of Article 19(1)(a) which does not vest with citizens unbridled liberty to utter statements which are vitriolic, derogatory, unwarranted, have no redeeming purpose and which, in no way amount to a communication of ideas”.

The ruling said “it is for the Parliament in its wisdom to enact a legislation or code to restrain, citizens in general and public functionaries in particular, from making disparaging or vitriolic remarks against fellow citizens…” and “for the respective political parties to regulate and control the actions and speech of its functionaries and members”, by putting in place a code of conduct.

She added that “any citizen, who is prejudiced by any form of attack, as a result of speech/expression through any medium, targeted against her/him or by speech which constitutes ‘hate speech’ or any species thereof, whether such attack or speech is by a public functionary or otherwise, may approach the Court of Law under Criminal and Civil statutes and seek appropriate remedies”.