Public functionaries need to restrain their speech: Justice BV Nagarathna
Says they owe duty towards citizenry
New Delhi: Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna on Tuesday said public functionaries, celebrities and other persons of influence owe a duty to the citizenry at large to be more responsible and restrained in their speech.
Justice Nagarathna was part of the five-judge Constitution bench which was unanimous on the larger issue that there should not be additional restrictions on freedom of speech and expression of high public functionaries as there are exhaustive grounds — morality, decency and public order — under the Constitution for restricting this right.
Justice Nagarathna also agreed on some other key Constitutional questions in the matter but gave separate reasonings.
However, she differed with four other judges of the bench on the issue whether the government can be held liable for a statement made by a minister. She said the government can be held “vicariously” (indirectly) liable for the disparaging statements made by individual ministers.
In her separate 121-page verdict, Justice Nagarathna, who is set to become the first woman chief justice of India in 2027, flagged the impact of ‘hate speech’ and said it strikes at each of the foundational values, by marking out a society as being unequal.
“Hate speech, in the sense discussed, strikes at each of these foundational values, by marking out a society as being unequal. It also violates fraternity of citizens from diverse backgrounds, the sine-qua-non (essential element) of a cohesive society based on plurality and multi-culturalism such as in India that is, Bharat,” she said.
The lone woman judge in the five-judge bench said that fraternity is based on the idea that citizens have reciprocal responsibilities towards one another and the term takes within its sweep, inter-alia, the ideals of tolerance, co-operation, and mutual aid.
She said that though she is concurring with the views expressed by other four judges of the bench, she has different perspective to some of the issues.
“Public functionaries and other persons of influence and celebrities, having regard to their reach, real or apparent authority and the impact they wield on the public or on a certain section thereof, owe a duty to the citizenry at large to be more responsible and restrained in their speech,” she said.
Justice Nagarathna said people of influence are required to understand and measure their words, having regard to the likely consequences thereof on public sentiment and behaviour, and also be aware of the example they are setting for fellow citizens to follow.
“While there are no infallible rules that can be formulated by the Court to define the precise threshold of acceptable speech, every citizen’s conscious attempt to abide by the Constitutional values, and to preserve in letter and spirit the culture contemplated under the Constitution will significantly contribute in eliminating instances of societal discord, friction and disharmony, on account of disparaging, vitriolic and derogatory speech, particularly when made by public functionaries and/or public figures,” she said.
Justice Nagarathna added that this does not in any way imply that ordinary citizens who form the great mass of the citizenry of this Country can shun responsibility for vitriolic, unnecessarily critical, diabolical speech, bordering on all those aspects mentioned under Article 19 (2) either against public functionaries/figures or against other citizens in general or against particular individuals.
“Every citizen of India must consciously be restrained in speech, and exercise the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) only in the sense that it was intended by the framers of the Constitution, to be exercised. This is the true content of Article 19(1)(a) which does not vest with citizens unbridled liberty to utter statements which are vitriolic, derogatory, unwarranted, have no redeeming purpose and which, in no way amount to a communication of ideas”, she added.
Justice Nagarathna further said that article 19(1)(a) vests a multi-faceted right, which protects several species of speech and expression from interference by the State.
“However, it is a no brainer that the right to freedom speech and expression, in a human-rights based democracy does not protect statements made by a citizen, which strike at the dignity of a fellow citizen. Fraternity and equality which lie at the very base of our Constitutional culture and upon which the superstructure of rights are built, do not permit such rights to be employed in a manner so as to attack the rights of another”, she added.
Justice Nagarathna concluded that it is for the Parliament in its wisdom to enact a legislation or code to restrain, citizens in general and public functionaries, in particular, from making disparaging or vitriolic remarks against fellow citizens, having regard to the strict parameters of Article 19(2) and bearing in mind the freedom under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
“Hence, I am not inclined to issue any guideline in this regard, but the observations made hereinabove may be borne in mind”, she said.
Justice Nagarathna further said that it is also for the respective political parties to regulate and control the actions and speech of its functionaries and members.
Press Trust of India
