Context: From Dissent to Deference
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech—not to ensure comfort, but to empower
citizens to dissent.
Yet, this foundational liberty is being diluted. Instead of defending rights, courts are increasingly acting as moral referees,
prioritizing emotional sensibilities over constitutional guarantees.
This drift reflects a worrying regression—from protecting liberty to policing feelings.
⚖️ Courts Reframing Rights as Privileges
🪪 From Rights to Permissions
The judiciary has subtly shifted from viewing speech as a protected right to treating it as a conditional allowance.
Example: The Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash an FIR against a youth who criticized the Prime Minister emphasized
emotional injury over constitutional protection.
This shift burdens citizens with the need to prove civility, reversing the core democratic principle that places the onus on the state
to justify restrictions.
😠 Outrage as a Legal Trigger
🧯 Legalising Hurt Sentiment
Judicial reactions increasingly validate emotional offense as grounds for legal action.
- Actor Kamal Haasan was asked to apologise for calling Kannada a “daughter” of Tamil—not based on legality, but to soothe
cultural discomfort. - Podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia and academic Ali Khan Mahmudabad faced legal heat for content judged by sentiment, not
by legal standards like harm or incitement.
This approach empowers those who weaponize emotions to suppress speech—even if it’s lawful.
📜 Misreading Article 19(2)
🚨 Blurring Lines Between Offense and Harm
The Constitution allows reasonable restrictions on speech only in cases of incitement, hate speech, or threats to public order.
However, courts increasingly equate annoyance or offense with public danger, distorting the original intent of Article 19(2).
Satirical or critical comments—even those aimed at institutions like the military—are now attracting harsh provisions, turning
procedural delays into punitive tools.
This misuse chills expression without formal conviction.
💔 The Rise of Sentimental Justice
🧎 Apologies Over Accountability
Courtrooms are evolving into platforms for regret rather than legal redress.
Apologies are encouraged not because laws were broken, but because sentiments were bruised.
Speech is expected to be sanitised; dissent, polite; and critique, mild.
This results in a culture where even comedians, YouTubers, and professors hesitate to provoke thought, fearing legal backlash.
🛡️ Reclaiming the Spirit of Article 19
🔁 Returning to Constitutional First Principles
India must reaffirm that:
- Lawful speech is protected, regardless of whether it’s polite or popular.
- Offense is not equivalent to harm.
- Judicially compelled apologies undermine free expression.
Courts must recognise the “chilling effect”, a concept respected globally, and ensure that the fear of litigation does not replace
open dialogue.
This is about every citizen’s right to speak truth to power—not just celebrity immunity.
🧠 Conclusion: Rights Over Reverence
Judges are not guardians of public emotion—they are defenders of constitutional liberty.
By elevating national sentiment over individual rights, the judiciary risks weakening India’s democratic fabric.
Free speech is not about comfort—it’s about courage.
As B.R. Ambedkar aptly put it:
“The world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible.”