Date: 08/02/2023

Relevance: GS 2: Indian Constitution - Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions, and Basic Structure.

Key Phrases: freedom of speech, Muzzling of unpopular opinions, the illusion of free speech, Domineering public opinion, self-censorship, Erosion of democratic values, Kaushal Kishore’s case.

Why in News?

• In the context of a nation, Tocqueville defines the maturity of a nation as the capacity of the people of that nation to act responsibly in the face of social flux.
• The 1990s and 2000s brought with them unprecedented economic progress, and brought us to the last decade — and also the transition from infancy to adolescence.
• This adolescence has not brought with it free thought, but rather, strong opposition to it — by other Indians, who disagree.

Freedom of Speech:

• Western notion:
  • The concept of freedom of speech is a western notion. While some form of freedom may have existed in ancient Greece, the real freedom of speech, as it is understood today, was propounded by Voltaire and Rousseau.
• Indian context:
  • B.R. Ambedkar, in his Writings and Speeches, notes this in relation to ancient India: “As to freedom of speech, it exists. But it exists only for those who are in favour of the social order.”
  • There is some evidence that the freedom of expression existed within state-ordained constructs. The content of the debates of Adi Shankara or Saint Thirugnana Sambandar seems remarkably liberal.
  • Freedom of speech is one of the most cherished freedoms. The Constitution of India, too, declares that Indians possess this freedom, but makes it subject to the interest of public order, or the sovereignty and integrity of India.

The illusion of free speech:

• Free speech is unpopular when it unsettles the existing order. People feel uneasy when someone stands up and say they have been doing things wrong and that things must change.
• Therefore, people maintain the status quo by suppressing unpopular speech. This enables the state to step in and define the framework within which speech is free. And when this happens, people have only the illusion of free speech, and real freedom is lost.

Muzzling of unpopular opinions:

• The muzzling of unpopular opinions is now done through mob power, actions for defamation, social media blackouts and vetoes, and the like.
• Calls for bans and boycotts of films and books are done for the silliest of reasons. Persons perceive insults and commence protests and lawsuits.
• Banners in film theatres are burnt, art studios are vandalized and the staging of plays is stopped, not because the art is bad, but because they disagree with what is expressed.
• Thus, the freedom of speech is under threat not only vertically (that is to say, from the state) but also horizontally (that is to say, from other citizens).

Impact of suppressing unpopular opinion through the power of the Mob:

• Domineering public opinion:
  • The mob provides us the comfort and the anonymity to suppress opinions and views that we disagree with. Once all dissenting thought is suppressed, we will find only views that echo our own.
  • This trend, if not arrested, can lead to a nation’s inhabitants surrendering their independence to a domineering public opinion.
  • This, in turn, yields to persons depending on a doting, parent-like guardian state for all “freedom”.
• Threat to freedom of speech:
  • It undermines the right to free speech and expression, which is a cornerstone of democracy.
• Chilling effect on speech:
  • Fear of mob violence and retaliation leads to self-censorship and a chilling effect on speech, which limits the exchange of ideas and opinions.
• Mob justice:
  • The use of mob power to silence dissenting voices often leads to mob justice, which operates outside the bounds of the legal system and lacks accountability.
• Censorship and control of information:
  • It can be used to control the flow of information and silence critical voices, thereby limiting public discourse.
• Threat to individual safety:
  • Those who hold unpopular opinions are often targeted by mobs and may face physical violence or harassment, which can have a lasting impact on their safety and well-being.
• Erosion of democratic values:
  • It undermines democratic values such as diversity of thought, tolerance, and the rule of law.
• Lack of government action:
  • The failure of the government to take strong action against those such mob power sends a message that such behaviour is acceptable and reinforces the use of mob power as a tool of censorship.

Expansion of the ambit of Article 19:

• The Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Kaushal Kishore’s case (rendered on January 3, 2023) declared that the fundamental rights of Indians are exercisable not only vertically but also horizontally.
• The question before the Court, in this case, was whether the fundamental rights (including the freedom of speech) can be claimed other than against the state or its instrumentalities.
• The Court concluded that such fundamental rights can be enforced even against persons other than the state and its instrumentalities.

Conclusion:

• The protection of freedom of speech is crucial for the maintenance of a democratic society, and it is the responsibility of both individuals and the government to ensure that this right is respected and upheld.
• Only by actively defending the freedom of speech and enforcing it against all actors, including the state, private individuals, and non-state actors, can we ensure that this fundamental right remains protected and valued in our society.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. What measures should the government take to counteract the suppression and the infringement of freedom of speech by mob power in India, and what role does the public have in promoting and protecting these fundamental rights in a democratic society? Discuss.