Today, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to dissent, stating that no criticism is ever offensive and that democracy could not endure if it did. The court further stated that the police have to be made aware of the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, dismissing a case against a man who had made disparaging remarks concerning the removal of Article 370, which gave Jammu and Kashmir unique status.
“The Constitution of India, under Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Under the said guarantee, every citizen has the right to offer criticism of the action of abrogation of Article 370 or, for that matter, every decision of the State. He has the right to say he is unhappy with any decision of the State,” the court said.
“Now is the time to educate our police machinery about the concept of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the limits of reasonable restraint on them… They should be sensitized about the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution,” said the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.
Javed Ahmed Hazam, a Kashmiri lecturer employed at Kolhapur College in Maharashtra, was charged with a crime after posting a WhatsApp status declaring August 5 to be a “Black Day for Jammu and Kashmir” and celebrating August 14 as Pakistan’s Independence Day. The case against him was to be dropped, the judge ordered.
The court said calling August 5 a “Black day” was an “expression of protest and pain”. Wishing people of Pakistan a happy Independence Day “is a goodwill gesture and cannot be said to create feelings of animosity, hostility, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups,” the judges added.
The test in such cases is “not the effect of the words on some weak-minded persons who see danger in every hostile approach, but the general effect of statements on reasonable persons who are significant in number,” the judges added.
The court ruled that inciting animosity between groups would not warrant punishment simply because certain people could grow hostile or ill-willed. “Legal means should be considered a part of the right to live a dignified and meaningful life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution (which grants freedom of speech),” the justices stated.
There was also a caveat – the opposition or disagreement, the court said, “must be within the four corners of the methods permitted in a democratic system”.
