Without Public Debates & Awareness About Political Rights, There Would Be No Democracy : Justice Nageswara Rao
Speaking at the Soli J Sorabjee 1st Excellence Award & Scholarship and Inaugural Memorial Lecture, Justice Nageswara Rao on Wednesday said that the Supreme Court of India, through all its judgements relating to fundamental rights and freedom of speech, has protected free speech so that every individual should be given opportunity to openly discuss about the issues.Justice Rao was speaking...
Speaking at the Soli J Sorabjee 1st Excellence Award & Scholarship and Inaugural Memorial Lecture, Justice Nageswara Rao on Wednesday said that the Supreme Court of India, through all its judgements relating to fundamental rights and freedom of speech, has protected free speech so that every individual should be given opportunity to openly discuss about the issues.
Justice Rao was speaking on the theme of 'The Role of the Supreme Court of India in Augmenting the Scope of Fundamental Rights.'
Citing a quote by Louis Brandeis that said 'inert people are menace to democracy' Justice Rao said that it is only with public discussion that you grow as individual, your intellectual capacity will grow and there will be awareness.
While stressing on the importance of the theory of marketplace of ideas, Justice Rao said that, in this country, if truth has to come out, it can be only with discussion.
"Truth has to grapple with falsehood. Unless there's public discussion and debates, unless there's awareness in people about political rights there would not be a democracy which is worth its name", Justice Rao said.
Justice Rao said that the fundamental rights are basic rights, which were not invented by Constitution, they were already there. These are inalienable, transcendental rights, which are not absolute and there can be restrictions on these rights.
With regard to the fundamental right of freedom of speech, Justice Rao said that Supreme Court has often dealt with cases registered against individuals on the ground that their speech resulted in sedition or promoted hatred.
He said that as and when there's comment made by citizen against the Government, whenever something is said against establishment, one would see there is a reaction by the establishment and they don't take criticism in proper manner.
"Section 124 A was challenged in Supreme Court on ground that it violates fundamental right of speech, the court refused to declare it as unconstitutional, but it has said that every speech made against Government policy can't be said to be seditious speech", Justice Rao said.
Speaking about the aspect of 'hate speech', Justice Rao said that how one categorises a speech as hate speech is the question that has engaged the courts.
"Assuming I criticise leader of a group would that be hate speech? If I am inciting a group to be up in arms, that may be hate speech, but it depends on the facts",he said.
He pointed out that when the Law Commission's assistance was sought by the Supreme Court in the matter relating to criminalisation of hate speech, the Commission had said that every speech cannot be termed as hate speech. And hate speech on other hand need not be restricted only to leading to violence. It can also be stopped if even without tendency of turning out to criminal action, it is driving a wedge between groups, religions, etc.
"There is no problem with discussion and advocacy, the problem arises when there is incitement. So the test was when something curtailed discussion and advocacy, it could not be a ground to curtail free speech and only when it is on incitement to commit violence, it could be said to be on the lines of violation of freedom speech," he said.
In relation to free speech, Justice Rao pointed out another aspect that engaged court's attention action : the action of executive in interfering with social media, by shutting down internet.
He added that a ground that is made for shutting down internet in interest of public and law and order has been dealt by courts.
He shared two such instances of internet shut down which had reached the Court, including internet shutdown in Kashmir and Assam.
"With growing computerisation & age of internet freedom of speech has been before the court in myriad ways",Justice Rao said.
Referring to the cultural and religious diversity in India, Justice Rao said that the country is doing so well because we believe in unity in diversity, and the Government has the duty to ensure that social, economic and political justice is given to all citizens as directed in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
"Article 14 is in two parts: it protects rights of persons in so far as equality before the law is concerned and the second aspect is equal protection of laws. Equality before the law is that no one is above the law. The Supreme Court has been reminding the citizenry of this country about what Thomas Fuller has said 'Be ye never so high, the law is above you'", he pointed out.
"We have 70% of National income within 10% of population and gap between have & have nots is so wide. Principle that has to be followed to bring them up is giving them certain concessions which has been codified",he said.
With regard to a citizen's fundamental right to dignity, Justice Rao said that every citizen has the right to claim human dignity which needs to be protected, and dignity comes from Right to food which has been subject matter before the Supreme Court. Further , there is also right to shelter, livelihood, education and health. The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 to cover right to food, right to shelter, right to livelihood and right to education.
"With these progressive ideas in mind, Supreme Court has been augmenting Fundamental Rights. I am sure fundamental rights which are basic rights will be protected by enhancing scope of Part III Of Constitution of India",Justice Rao said while concluding his lecture.