Speeches Criticising Govt, Its Policies & Actions Cannot Be Termed As Threat To Public Order: Madras High Court

While setting aside the detention of Youtuber Savukku Shankar, the Madras High Court on Friday observed that freedom of speech is an inborn right and the same cannot be curtailed unless there is a threat to public order. The court added that speeches criticizing the government, its actions and policies, and those exposing the corrupt or illegal actions of the government could not be called a threat to public order. “Freedom of Speech and expression is an inborn right. The State cannot strangulate it unless it causes a serious threat to public safety and security. Speeches criticising the ruling government, its policies and actions or exposing corrupt or illegal actions in the public administration cannot in itself be termed as threat to 'Public order',” the court said. The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam also noted an individual's freedom could not be clamped down at the whims and fancies of the State. The court underlined the State must exercise extreme care and caution while invoking the Preventive Detention laws and should not routinely use the same to suppress the fundamental rights of the citizens. “This individual freedom cannot be clamped down at the whims and fancies of the State. Extreme care and caution is a pre condition to invoke preventive detention laws and must not be used in a routine manner to suppress fundamental rights of the citizens. Excessive usage of such laws to restrict the right to free speech will deter other citizens from enforcing their right to criticism or opinions against the State thereby fracturing the spine of democracy,” the court said. The bench remarked that in the internet age, with overflowing information, it was impossible to prosecute every person who was spreading false information. The court added that while detaining persons, the State's threshold must be to see if the publication causes any threat to public order. The court also commented that selective detention of persons for spreading false information was a threat to democracy. The court also observed that in a democracy, there were bound to be different views and the State's duty was much larger than engaging in legal battles to prevent unacceptable opinion. The court said that instead of engaging in legal battles for comments made in the media, the State could handle social media as an effective tool to understand the grievances of the common man. The court highlighted that a free country should always propagate free speech and reasonable restrictions should be used in the most sparing way possible. It added that by taking such drastic steps against citizens for expressing opinions, the state was taking a wrong course of action. The court underlined that the soul of a healthy democracy was in free speech and the court could not narrow the walls of this freedom. Choice Of Viewership With Consumer The court also pointed out that a content provider could not be held solely responsible for influencing the viewer. The court highlighted another aspect of the issue and said that in many cases, a viewer, based on his own views, sought content which ascribed to their own notions. The court stated that the social media could not be thrust upon a viewer and the choice to consume a particular content was always upon the viewer, based on his own notions and ideologies. At the same time, the court added that a viewer had the right to know the opinion of other citizens on the policies and actions of the government and a censorship against such view would be unhealthy for good governance."The choice to consume a content is always at the disposal of the viewer. The viewer has a right to know the opinions of a fellow citizen on the policies or actions of the government or any other institution working for the people. Censorship against such views is unhealthy for good governance," the court observed.The court thus pointed out that if an individual was affected by any views, he had the liberty to proceed against such remarks or views in the manner known to law. However, if the state ended up taking a stricter construction of content on social media, it would be embarking on a never-ending and unproductive journey. The court added that the spirit of Article 19(1)(a) will begin to loose its sheen through such endless narrowing down of its contours. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.C.Iyyapparaj For Mr.T.S.Lavanesh Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 306 Case Title: A Kamala v State and Others Case No: HCP 1163 of 2024Click here to read/download the judgment

Speeches Criticising Govt, Its Policies & Actions Cannot Be Termed As Threat To Public Order: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Speeches Criticising Govt, Its Policies & Actions Cannot Be Termed As Threat To Public Order: 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