Free Speech Does Not Mean Hurting Sentiments of Others: Justice V Ramasubramanian

Hyderabad: 'Free speech does not mean hurting the sentiments of others,' remarked Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and former judge of the Supreme Court of India, while addressing a national seminar on Judiciary as the Guardian of Human Rights: An In - Depth Evaluation on Tuesday.
Justice Ramasubramanian emphasized the delicate balance courts must maintain when constitutional freedoms come into conflict. 'When two rights compete, the courts must apply extreme caution. In such cases, Article 18 helps determine which right prevails,' he noted.
India is not an easy country to govern, he said, highlighting the judiciary's role since Independence and classifying its contributions into four key areas. The first, he said, is facilitating access to justice. 'Facilitating access to justice for the common man is the first step,' he said.
Expanding the Scope of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, has evolved to include the right to livelihood, dignity, and freedom of movement. The third important contribution, he noted, is uplifting Directive Principles. He explained that the judiciary has interpreted the Directive Principles of State Policy as enforceable by aligning them with Article 21, thereby giving them constitutional strength.
The fourth core contribution, he said, is creating laws where none exist. He praised the courts' proactive role in establishing temporary legal frameworks - such as gender sensitization committees for women - in the absence of formal legislation.
Justice Dr Shameem Akhtar, Judge of the Telangana High Court, remarked, 'No system is perfect, but ours is evolving towards a more just and compassionate society.'
Dr Vidyadhar Bhatt C., Secretary and CEO of the Telangana State Human Rights Commission (TSHRC), stated that in a democratic country, the judiciary is the guardian of human rights.
The seminar concluded with a consensus that the judiciary remains the most trusted and consistent guardian of human rights in India.
The event was attended by senior members of the bar, law students, civil society representatives, and members of the media.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

4 hours ago

• Time of India

Wife's WhatsApp chats obtained via 'spy app' used as valid evidence about her extramarital affair in Divorce case, what Madhya Pradesh HC said

In a crucial ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reportedly permitted a husband to present his wife's private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case, even though they were obtained without her consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court's decision, based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, allows Family Courts to consider evidence that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to resolve disputes like divorce. The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife's phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife's legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice. The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife's right to privacy and the husband's right to a fair trial. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. 'A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,' the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act's intent. The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband's case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.

Hans India

6 hours ago

• Hans India

NHRC takes suo motu cognizance of Kuppam woman's public assault

TIRUPATI: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has taken suo motu cognizance of a shocking incident in Narayanapuram village of Kuppam mandal, Chittoor district, where a woman was tied to a tree and assaulted in front of her son over an unpaid loan. The commission described the act as a serious violation of human rights and issued notices to the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police (DGP) of Andhra Pradesh, seeking a detailed report within two weeks. The NHRC also acknowledged the formal complaint submitted by Tirupati MP M Gurumoorthy and said it has been clubbed with the suo motu case. The Commission warned that it is the state government's responsibility to ensure that such inhuman acts are not repeated and emphasised the need for accountability and preventive measures. The incident, which took place on June 16, involved a woman named Sirisha, whose husband had reportedly absconded after taking a loan, leaving behind his wife and three children. In his absence, the creditors allegedly tied Sirisha to a tree and beat her in front of her minor son, triggering widespread outrage.V The case drew immediate attention from Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, who represents the Kuppam constituency in the State Assembly. He condemned the incident and directed officials to take stringent action. The police arrested those involved and booked them under multiple sections of the BNS. In response to the incident, the State Government has announced a financial assistance package for the victim. Sirisha was granted Rs.5 lakh in aid, and the government has pledged to take responsibility for her children's education. Additionally, she will be allotted 50 cents of land within Kuppam municipality limits to help her rebuild her life.

The Hindu

14 hours ago

• The Hindu

​No fetters: On Thug Life, extra-judicial bans

In ensuring the screening of the film Thug Life — thespian Kamal Haasan plays the lead role — in Karnataka, the Supreme Court of India has unequivocally asserted a fundamental free speech principle that certified films cannot be stifled by protests or a recourse to 'hurt sentiments'. Following Mr. Haasan's comment in a pre-launch event, that Kannada was born from Tamil (it is factually inaccurate as both languages have been known to share a proto-Dravidian ancestor), the film has faced an extra-judicial ban in Karnataka; the Karnataka High Court had suggested that he apologise. The Supreme Court's directions however repudiate this 'moral' position taken by the High Court, bringing into focus the judiciary's role as a guardian of due process. After the film was certified by the CBFC, there should be no fetters on its release, and, therefore, the extra-judicial ban violated the rule of law. The film certification framework, governed by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and its rules, is designed to safeguard creativity, while maintaining a balance between constitutionally mandated free speech and reasonable restrictions. The CBFC, equipped to vet films with these legal standards, is solely tasked with doing so. Amorphous groups claiming 'hurt sentiments' to intimidate a film's release have no role in this. Giving in to such claims risks violating free speech rights and hurting the livelihoods of actors, artists, technicians and workers. The top court rightly characterised extra-judicial bans as a direct infringement on film-makers' constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression. By emphatically rejecting the extra-judicial ban, the Court has reiterated its positions that maintaining law and order in the face of divergent views is the state's responsibility. It is vital to understand that certified and regulated freedom of speech, as assessed by the CBFC, is distinct from hate speech, which finds no constitutional protection and can be legally restricted. This crucial distinction underscores that legitimate artistic expression, once cleared by the designated authority, deserves state protection. Moving forward, the Court's directions should pave the way for the state to provide institutional safeguards against unofficial bans overriding the CBFC's certification and release. These could include holding theatre owners accountable for unwarranted cancellations of scheduled releases, policing guidelines that distinguish lawful dissent from illegal intimidation and also allowing for citizens to watch a certified film without fear.