EXPENSIVE/FREE SPEECH

The Constitution of India gives us- its citizens, certain rights. One such inclusion is Article 19 1 (a). In judicial terms, Article 19 1 (a) states that – All citizens of India shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. In simple words, this part of the article states that Indians are allowed to speak and express freely whatever they wish to convey. Thus the original constitution had only this form of the right, which excluded any kind of restrictions or conditions. I agree, that, there might have been a few drawbacks to this right. But, the major problem that was raised against this right was by the Nehruvian Government.

In 1950, a left wing journalist named Romesh Thapar, published critical views about the Nehruvian Policy, and hence was banned by the Madras State. The Madras State filed a petition in the Supreme Court and the case resulted in their favour. This therefore led to the First Amendment of the Indian Constitution, and certain restrictions were included under the new section called Article 19 2. This was the biggest loss to the media industry because it resulted in a lot further restrictions in their duties and way of functioning. Here, I quote Article 19 2 – “Article 19(2) in The Constitution of India 1949 states that-           Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.

Also, the Economic and Political Weekly faced harsh criticism as they raised arguments about Indira Gandhi. Is this why the right was introduced in the first place? To be reduced to such a minimal that the existence of the right hardly makes a difference. I’m not completely unhappy with the right, but the value of the right is so minimal due to the restrictions imposed. On the other hand, as if the right is being granted or equally utilised by ALL the citizens. As is it, there are only a few people who speak up and stand for the truth, on top of that, these restrictions are laid down. Now, even those who want to speak up, think a million times about the consequences they would have to face.

I want YOU to think for a minute. Does your maid know object her husband’s orders, like, maybe you do? Does the lady in the Burkha have the guts to become a news reporter for an English News Channel or let alone marry or even talk to a Hindu man in public? Does your college/ office watchman have the right to tell you to leave the premises on account of absence of our ID card without being ridiculed or abused? Does anyone have the guts to point out that a man who is 45 years of age is the Political Youth Icon of the country? Then maybe, ‘youth’ just got a new definition. And why is there such reluctance when someone wants to speak his/her mind?

The right therefore, isn’t establishing any kind of equality, integrity, morality or any kind of factual matter. Everything is just fake, or so censored that the truth is CHOPPED OFF!!! Everyone just wants to protect himself and let his secrets be buried away with his corpse. But nothing stays hidden for a long time. So, I wanted to know the sole purpose of having such a right which doesn’t cut across the cultural, social, economical of gender barriers!?!??

Basically what happened was, they kept a block of cheese infront of a rat and a few milliseconds later, they placed the block of cheese on a trap. So that, when the rat comes to eat the cheese, the rat gets trapped inside and dies. In the same way, citizens either don’t have access to free speech or the right to ‘free-wala’ speech comes at an expensive price.