Targeting any community based on religion, caste, violates Constitution: Supreme Court

“It will be violative of the Constitution to target any particular community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region by whosoever he or she may be. This is particularly true for public figures occupying high constitutional office who have taken the solemn oath to uphold the Constitution,” the Supreme Court added.

Justice Bhuyan in the judgment dated February 19 made detailed observations on fraternity and free speech.

Fraternity

• One of the solemn objectives of our Constitution which finds mention in the Preamble is to promote amongst all the citizens of India fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation. This is the guiding philosophy of our Constitution.
• Cultivating a sense of brotherhood and respecting fellow citizens irrespective of caste, religion or language is a constitutional dharma each one of us must follow.
• Dr. Ambedkar’s introduction of the term ‘fraternity’ into the constitutional Preamble reflects his persistent efforts towards eradicating caste discrimination, his advocacy for unity and brotherhood which mirrors his commitment to inclusivity.
• Unlike the West, in India, fraternity is distinctly perceived as a vital instrument for realising equality and harmonizing the diverse segments of society.
• It serves as a conduit for transcending societal disparities and working towards collective well-being.
• Therefore, in the Indian constitutional context, fraternity assumes a dynamic and inclusive role, aligning with the broader goals of social justice, equality and upliftment.

Free speech

• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, referring to Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) and the preamble to the Constitution in the context of examining the vires of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which provided for punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service etc, observed that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.
• A two-judge bench in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat declared that one of the most important fundamental rights conferred on the citizens of India is under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Nachiketa Walhekar v. Central Board of Film Certification was an Article 32 petition filed before the court where the petitioner sought for stay of the nation-wide release of a film ‘An Insignificant Man’ as it allegedly contained a video clip pertaining to the petitioner who also sought for quashing of the certificate granted by the board.
• It was restated by the Supreme Court that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and that the said right should not be ordinarily interfered with. Once the board has granted the certificate, the Supreme Court should restrain itself in not entertaining the writ petition or granting injunction.
• Freedom of a movie maker to send a message across the society at large or for pure entertainment is based on the touchstone of free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
• S Rangarajan v P Jagjivan Ram underscored that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstration and processions or violence as it would amount to negation of the rule of law.
• Nagpur High Court in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Government laid down the standard of judging the effect of the words or expressions used in a movie and stated that it “must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong minded, firm and courageous men and not those of weak and vacillating minds and not those who scent danger in every hostile point of view”.
• In Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh the court observed that the authorities concerned with the film certification are required to ensure that artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curved. The ‘film must be judged in its entirety from the point of view of the overall impact’. The film that carries the message that the “social evil is evil cannot be made impermissible on the ground that it depicts the social evil” but that depiction must be just sufficient for the purpose of the film.
• In Prakash Jha Productions Vs. Union of India the court held that reservation is one of the social issues and in a vibrant democracy like ours, public discussions and debates on social issues are required. When there is public discussion including some dissent then an informed and better decision can be taken which helps the society grow.

With inputs from Sumit Kumar Singh

(Sumit is an intern with The Indian Express)