Speak freely
Why all courts must protect your right to speak your mind
In India, the Constitution says you have the right to speak freely – as long as you don't break certain fair rules (like spreading hate or lies). But this right only really works if all courts across the country protect it.
Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) – the top court in India – stood up strongly for free speech. In the case of a film called Thug Life by Kamal Haasan, someone said their feelings were hurt and wanted the film blocked in Karnataka. But the SC said no – just because someone is offended doesn't mean another person should lose their right to express themselves. If hurt feelings were enough, then free speech would always be in danger.
This isn't the first time. Just a few months ago, in a case about poet Imran Pratapgarhi, the SC said that even if lots of people dislike your opinion, you still have the right to share it.
But not all courts agree. Recently, the Calcutta High Court told a young person, 'You can't hurt others just because you have free speech.' And the Karnataka High Court told Haasan something similar. Lower courts also sometimes say things that go against what the SC has already made very clear.
This creates confusion and makes people afraid to speak their minds, because they don't know if a local court might punish them, even if the SC would support them.
In a strong democracy, free speech matters. And if it's a right promised by the Constitution, every court – not just the top one – needs to protect it.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Maharashtra reconstitutes panel on Karnataka border row
BELAGAVI: In a fresh move to bolster its stance on the boundary dispute with Karnataka, the Maharashtra government has reconstituted its high power committee. The committee will be headed by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. Several top leaders from different political parties of Maharashtra are on this panel, which was earlier headed by former CM Eknath Shinde. The 18-member committee includes DyCMs Eknath Shinde and Ajit Pawar, former CMs Sharad Pawar, Prithviraj Chavan, and Narayan Rane, and border affairs expert Prof Avinash Kolhe. Ministers Chandrakant Dada Patil and Shambhuraje Desai are on the core coordination team attached to the panel and are tasked with handling matters related to the Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti (MES), a pro-Marathi outfit based in Karnataka. According to informed sources, the committee will draw up strategies to not only strengthen the boundary case stronger in the Supreme Court but would also dwell upon various alternatives which could help Maharashtra in the ongoing tussle. Sources said that MES leaders may be asked to provide information about the dispute which could benefit Maharashtra. It may be noted that at the behest of MES, the Maharashtra government is involved in a legal and political battle with Karnataka, staking its claim on hundreds of villages and towns of Karnataka along the border, including Belagavi, Khanapur, Karwar, Bhalki, and Nippani.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC pulls up govt over delay in opening Alampur govt hospital
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Friday came down heavily on the state govt for the 18-month delay in operationalising a 100-bed govt hospital in Alampur, Jogulamba Gadwal district , despite the facility being fully constructed and equipped. A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing a PIL filed by Ramchandra Reddy, a social activist and politician from the district. The court expressed concern over the prolonged inaction and directed the govt and relevant departments to file a detailed counter-affidavit within two weeks, explaining the reasons for the delay. The petitioner informed the court that the hospital was built with ₹21 crore sanctioned in 2021, and construction was completed by Oct 2023. However, despite being fully equipped, the hospital has not been made operational. He added that the unused building is now lying vacant and vulnerable to misuse by anti-social elements. Highlighting the demographic and social context, the petitioner noted that Alampur is an SC reserved constituency, home to a large population from Dalit and Backward Classes communities. The absence of a functioning public hospital, he argued, violates residents' fundamental right to health , as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Due to the non-functional hospital, locals are reportedly forced to travel long distances-to Kurnool, Gadwal, or even Hyderabad-for basic medical care. Taking note of these submissions, Justice Sujoy Paul observed that despite constructing a 100-bed hospital, the state had neither appointed staff nor operationalised services, leaving costly equipment idle and unutilised. The case will be taken up for further hearing after the state submits its explanation.
Time of India
an hour 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.
