Hate Speech Strikes At Foundational Values Of Constitution; Political Parties Must Control Speeches Of Members: Justice BV Nagarathna

In her separate opinion, she analysed the critical and doctrinal underpinnings justifying a restraint on derogatory and discouraging speech with respect to two primary factors – human dignity as a value as well as a right, and the preambular goals of equality and fraternity. “Hate speech strikes at the foundational values of the Constitution by marking out a society as being unequal. It also violates the fraternity of citizens from diverse backgrounds, which is the sine qua non of a cohesive society based on plurality and multiculturalism such as in India that is Bharat,” the judge said. Speaking about fraternity, Justice Nagarathna asserted that it was based on the idea that citizens had reciprocal responsibilities towards one another and took within its sweep, inter alia, the ideals of tolerance, cooperation and mutual aid.

The Supreme Court judge reiterated that it was a fundamental duty of every citizen of India to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the country and promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood between all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic, regional, and sectional diversities. Every citizen was under a constitutional obligation, she added, to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women and to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, “so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement”. She explained that the fundamental duties of citizens also constituted the core constitutional values for good citizenship in our democracy. “All citizens were enjoined with the obligation of promoting fraternity, harmony, unity, and collective welfare,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Justice Nagarathna further observed that public functionaries and other persons of influence and celebrities, having regard to their reach and their impact on the public or a certain section, were duty bound to be more responsible and restrained in their speech. “They are required to understand and measure their words having regard to the likely consequences on public sentiment and behaviour and also be aware of the example they are setting on the fellow citizens to follow.” She also cautioned that it was for the political parties to regulate and control the action and speech of their functionaries and members. “This could be through a code of conduct which would prescribe the limits of permissible speech by functionaries and members of the respective political parties,” the judge suggested.

Finally, she reminded that any citizen who is subjected to hate speech by a public functionary or otherwise would be entitled to approach a court of law and seek appropriate remedies. “Whenever permissible, civil remedies in the nature of declaratory remedies, injunctions as well as pecuniary damages may be awarded as prescribed under relevant statues,” she said.

The main report about the judgment may be read here.

Additional Restrictions Not Found In Article 19(2) Cannot Be Imposed On Right To Free Speech : Supreme Court

Case Title

Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP | WP (Crl) No. 113/2016

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment