Q.6 What do understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. GS-II: POLITY (UPSC CSE 2014)

Answer.

THE INTRODUCTION:

Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a). However, this freedom is not absolute and has certain restrictions under Article 19(2). These restrictions can be imposed on India’s sovereignty and integrity, state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.

THE BODY

• • Hate speech is unequivocally excluded from the protections of freedom of speech, as it egregiously infringes upon the rights of others or specific communities.
  • According to the 267th Report of the Law Commission of India, hate speech is defined as incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, and the Therefore, freedom of speech and expression is distinct from hate speech.

In India, hate speech is regulated under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505, which address promoting enmity between different groups and insulting religious beliefs as follows: –

• • Section 153A of the IPC prohibits promoting enmity between different groups on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, , and doing acts prejudicial to maintaining harmony.
  • Section 295A of the IPC penalizes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
  • Section 505(2) of the IPC punishes statements that create or promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes.
  • Section 8 of the RPA 1951 (RPA) prevents a person convicted of illegally using freedom of speech from contesting an election.
  • In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court has underlined the significance of considering context and intent in determining whether specific speech qualifies as hate speech.
  • In a ruling in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court acknowledged the effects of hate speech and recognized that it can be subject to regulation under the ‘public order’ provision in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
  • Indian Films are different from other forms of Expression. Movies are an art form purely based on entertainment. Though freedom of speech and expression are safeguarded, they are currently under the scanner for making propaganda movies.

LANDMARK CASES ILLUSTRATE THE UNIQUE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FOR FILMS IN INDIA

• • Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): The Supreme Court held that films must be judged entirely and not based on isolated scenes. The Court emphasized that films should not be censored merely because they depict controversial issues.
  • A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of film pre-censorship, recognizing the medium’s powerful influence and potential to affect public order.
  • Padmavat Case (2018): The film “Padmavat” faced significant opposition and required changes before release to address public sentiments and maintain order.
  • Films are a mass medium that can reach a larger and more diverse audience than other forms of expression. They can transcend barriers of literacy and language.
  • Due to their broad reach, films can potentially shape public opinion and societal norms on a large scale. Films combine audio and visual elements, making them more immersive and impactful than other forms of media.
  • India is a diverse country with multiple religions, cultures, and social Films that disrespect these sensitivities can lead to societal unrest. Therefore, films often undergo scrutiny to ensure they respect these cultural norms and sensitivities,
  • However, it’s essential to balance regulation and freedom of expression. Filmmakers should be free to express their views and creativity; censorship should not stifle this creative freedom.

THE CONCLUSION:

Freedom does not encompass hate speech, which has the potential to incite violence and discrimination. The legal framework, including the Cinematograph Act and various judicial pronouncements, guarantees that films adhere to standards safeguarding societal interests while preserving creative freedom.