Freedom of expression is one of the basic and human rights of every individual citizen in a free country. We, as citizens of independent India, too, have this right under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Our courts of law, from time to time, assert this right and grant it afresh to some aggrieved party in a given case. Elucidating its wide scope, in a judgment of the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Apex Court held that the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also.
But, for that matter, this does not mean that freedom of speech and expression is absolute. Agreed it has no geographical limitation, but it does carry certain restrictions on the exercise of this right. The Clause 2 of the said Article affirms 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… public order, decency or morality… or incitement to an offence.”
In a January 6 landmark verdict, a three-judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices Ranjana Desai, D Y Chandrachud and R S Mohite upheld a ban clamped in 2007 by the Maharashtra government on Advocate R.V. Bhasin’s book Islam – A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims.
Bhasin’s book is a bundle of lies, and replete with false statements about Islam and Muslims, Prophet Muhammad (may Allah bless and greet him) and Islamic Ulema.
The Court also held that in India criticism of any religion is permissible under the fundamental right of freedom of speech, be it Islam, Hinduism, Christianity or any other religion, and a book cannot be banned for that reason alone. But, clarified the Court, the criticism must be bona fide or academic.
The 150-page verdict penned by Justice Desai further said, “Healthy criticism provokes thought, encourages debate and helps us evolve. But criticism cannot be malicious and must not lead to creating ill-will between different communities… (it) must lead to sensible dialogue.”
The Bombay High Court verdict has once again restored the confidence of minorities in judiciary. With this verdict, the matter now stands settled that freedom of expression is not and has never been absolute or without any restrictions. What lies running beneath the verdict is maintenance of peace, public order, decency and morality in society at every cost. So, though it is “a difficult task”, citizens, writers as well as courts of law must strike a balance between the guaranteed freedom and reasonable restrictions.