Free Speech Cannot Be Stifled By Implicating Citizens In Criminal Cases, Dissent Can Be Expressed Under Article 19(1)(a): Madras High Court

While quashing a criminal case registered against AIADMK's C. Ve Shanmugam for his comments about the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court underscored the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to dissent. Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan noted that in a democracy, the opposition has a role to point out the failures of the government. The court added that Article 19(1)(a) was a vehicle through which dissent could be expressed, and thus, Shanmugam's speech could only be construed as a dissent and criticism against the current government. “The petitioner is being the member of opposite party of the State of Tamil Nadu, in a democracy the role of the opposition to point out the failures of the Government and the short comings to the general public. The right of freedom of speech and expression and the right to hold public meetings is enshrined in the Constitution of India and there are fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizens of India. The Article 19(1)(a) serves as a vehicle through in which dissent can be expressed. Therefore, the speech of the petitioner can only be construed as dissent and criticism about the present Government of Tamil Nadu,” the court said. The court also highlighted that the free speech of the citizens could not be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases unless the speech had a tendency to affect the public order. “Thus, it is clear that the free speech of citizens of the country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases unless such speech has the tendency to affect the public order,” the court added. At the same time, the court also noted that the language used by Shanmugam was not elegant or eloquent and being an MLA and Minister for 10 years, he should not have spoken with hate speech about the Chief Minister of the State. The court thus cautioned Shanmugam to avoid such hate speeches while addressing public meetings. “Though the petitioner has right of freedom of speech and expression and the right to hold public meeting under Article 19(i)(a) of the Constitution of India with some restrictions, though he had spoken for good cause about the general public problem of inflation and rise in the price of essential commodities, the petitioner should not have spoken with hate speech about the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the petitioner shall have to avoid hate speech while addressing in the public meeting,” the court said. The case against Shanmugam was lodged for the speech made by him while staging a demonstration near the Thiruvallur Statue in Villupuram. It was alleged that during the speech, he had defamed the Chief Minister in a derogatory manner with the intent to cause loss of reputation. Thus, based on the complaint by the Public Prosecutor, the Villupuram court took cognizance of offenses under Section 499 of IPC, punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Challenging this, Shanmugam had approached the court. He argued that the speech was made in a lawful protest organised to condemn the rise of prices in goods, especially essential commodities. He submitted that the prosecution was a politically motivated one that was completely unsustainable. Shanmugam argued that in a democracy, the opposition's role was to point out the failures and the shortcomings of the Government in an expressive manner so that the government is aware of the public sentiments. The Government Advocate, however, pointed out that the speech clearly attracted Section 499 of the IPC and it was mischievous and slanderous intended to malign the reputation of the Chief Minister and the Government. He contended that the speech was not constructive criticism but was intended to lower the reputation of the CM, without any good faith. Thus, he argued that there was no ground to quash the entire proceedings and it had to be gone into by a full-fledged trial. The court noted that in the present case, the Public Prosecutor had failed to show that the public order was disrupted due to Shanmugam's speech. The court also observed that the speech was not defamatory per se and talked about the failure of people who are in power. The court added that the holders of public office must be thick-skinned and should take on the criticisms and make suitable changes to their policy decisions. The court also noted that the speech made by Shanmugam would fall within the 2nd and 3rd exceptions and would not amount to defamation to attract the offence under Section 499 IPC. The court further observed that in the order taking cognisance, there was nothing to show that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts of the case. The court thus held that the order, being a cryptic one passed in a routine manner could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Narayan, for Mr. M. Mohammed Riyaz Counsel...

Free Speech Cannot Be Stifled By Implicating Citizens In Criminal Cases, Dissent Can Be Expressed Under Article 19(1)(a): Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Free Speech Cannot Be Stifled By Implicating Citizens In Criminal Cases, Dissent Can Be Expressed Under Article 19(1)(a): Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers