Free Speech

Patricia Mukhim's  Facebook post -- “This continued attack on non-tribals in Meghalaya, whose ancestors have lived here for decades, some having come here since the British period is reprehensible to say the least,” Mukhim had written. “The fact that such attackers and trouble mongers since 1979 have never been arrested and if arrested never penalised according to law, suggests that Meghalaya has been a failed state for a long time now.” https://scroll.in/article/978765/patricia-mukhim-interview-one-cannot-be-too-guarded-when-one-is-in-the-pursuit-of-truth

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/free-speech-citizens-criminal-cases-supreme-court-171739 reports some observations of the Supreme court.. 

"The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153 A IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens rea in order to succeed. The gist of the offence under Section 153 A IPC is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the circumstances in which it was written and published. The matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must, be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.

"The first test was for the Courts to apply the hate speech prohibition objectively and in so doing, ask whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred. The second test was to restrict interpretation of the legislative term "hatred" to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words "detestation" and "vilification". This would filter out and protect speech which might be repugnant and offensive, but does not incite the level of abhorrence, de-legitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or injury. The third test was for Courts to focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely, whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. Mere repugnancy of the ideas expressed is insufficient to constitute the crime attracting penalty."

The bench observed that only where the written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or affecting public tranquility, the law needs to step in to prevent such an activity.

Less than two years after he stepped down as Vice-Chancellor, noted scholar, political scientist and commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta resigned as professor from Ashoka University Tuesday. Mehta, who is also Contributing Editor, The Indian Express, has consistently, in his writing and public appearances, questioned the ruling establishment. He is considered one of the nation’s foremost scholars on politics and political theory, Constitutional law, governance and political economy.

Asked by The Indian Express if his criticism of the government had anything to do with his exit, the university sidestepped the question.

 The Jammu and Kashmir high court has ruled that authorities deprived Kashmiri journalist and editor Fahad Shah of his “constitutional and legal rights” while terming the grounds of his detention under the controversial Public Safety Act (PSA) as “mere surmise” and “vague and bald assertions.” https://thewire.in/law/fahad-shah-public-safety-act-jammu-kashmir-high-court 

Quashing the proceedings under the PSA, which has been termed as ‘a lawless law’ by Amnesty International, a single bench of J&K HC led by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ruled that the authorities “did not carefully evaluate and apply their thoughts” while issuing the PSA order.

by Jehangir Ali

20/04/2023

Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Kashmiri Professor Booked For WhatsApp Status Calling Abrogation Of Article 370 "Black Day For J&K" https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/all-high-courts/bombay-high-court-professor-abrogation-article-370-black-day-jammu-kashmir-whatsapp-status-fir-dissent-criticism-analysis-democracy-226339

When I look at the court observation that .. “In our view, this message has the tendency to play with emotions of different groups of people in India as there are strong feelings of contrasting nature about status of Jammu and Kashmir in India and, therefore, one has to tread cautiously in such a field, lest the emotions may reach up to sucha level as to bring about consequences or reasonable possibility of consequences visiting as envisaged in Section 153-A of IPC,” the court added.

Comments of WhatsApp: .. It looks like there is a conservative Collective consciousness  in the benches, that is uncomfortable with liberal ideas, which seems to agree that "khatre mein hain" logic...

the observation “So, if any criticism is to be made, it must be upon evaluation of all pros and cons of the situation and backed by reason,” means that you cannot have any criticism on "strong feelings of contrasting nature" on any short messaging app, like WA, Instagram, Twitter.. "evaluation of all pros and con" and back up of "reason" should be "seen" and not heard in the courts!