The Supreme Court recently observed that it is constitutionally impermissible for anyone, whether state or non-state actors, to vilify or denigrate any community through speeches, memes, cartoons or visual art.
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stressed that this is “particularly true for public figures occupying high constitutional office”, saying that they must not target any community on the basis of religion, language, caste or region.
The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Bhuyan on February 19 closed a public interest litigation against the title of the movie Ghooskhor Pandat after the filmmakers agreed to change the name. The petitioner had alleged that the title defamed the Brahmin community.
The use of the word “pandat”, associated with the Brahmin community and also meaning a priest, with “ghooskhor”, a term for someone who accepts bribes, had led to objections against the film.
Bhuyan, in his separate judgement in the case, said that although no adjudication was strictly required once the title was withdrawn, it was necessary to restate “that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and that the said right should not be ordinarily interfered with”.
Referring to the Preamble, he said that fraternity is one of the Constitution’s foundational objectives and forms part of its guiding philosophy
Bhuyan also noted that every citizen has a fundamental duty to promote harmony and a spirit of common brotherhood transcending religious, linguistic and regional diversities.
He referred to the Constitution Bench decision concerning Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which described fraternity as a concept intended to cultivate a sense of brotherhood amongst all individuals within society.
Against this backdrop, the judge stated: “It is constitutionally impermissible for anybody, be it the State or non-state actors, through any medium, such as speeches, memes, cartoons or visual arts, to vilify and denigrate any community.”
During the hearing, the bench had questioned the film’s title, observing that it appeared to denigrate a section of society.
However, the court also underscored that once a film has been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, courts should be circumspect in considering any interference with its exhibition.
Bhuyan referred in particular to the caution expressed in the Imran Pratapgadhi versus State of Gujarat case – that courts must not be seen to regulate or stifle the freedom of speech and expression.
He cited the observation in that judgment that a 75-year-old Republic should not be so fragile as to feel threatened by a poem or a comic show, adding, “this would equally apply to the title of a movie as well”.
The observations come in the backdrop of the Supreme Court declining to entertain petitions under Article 32 seeking registration of a hate speech first information report against Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma for his series of remarks targeting Bengali-origin Muslims in Assam, calling them “Miyas”.
Also read: Has the Supreme Court gone soft on hate speech?
Just 0.2% of readers pay for news. The others don’t care if it dies. You can help make a difference. Support independent journalism – join Scroll now.
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!