CENSORSHIP AND THE FREEDOM RIGHTS OF EXPRESSION

 

Mark Twain once said "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it”, a clear message by him which states that censorship violates the rights of expression and often limits what mature and thoughtful individuals can read, watch or say, just because someone else might get offended or might unable to process it, which actually limits the human intelligence of its other perceiving nature. First let’s learn what is freedom of expression and its importance.  Freedom of expression is one of those which we take for granted, and is actually the foundation stones of any democratic nation/society/government. According to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, each individual has the right to express his/her/their opinion, share ideas and access the information without any interference. Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution is enshrined with this freedom, which gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. It’s that powerful which allows people of the nation/country to question the authority, speak up against any injustice and participate meaningfully in public life and domain. The freedom of expression is a basic fundamental right of any of the individuals which allows you, me and others to speak, write, and share ideas without any fear or control. It is the backbone of any democratic societies in the world. However, sometimes governments, organizations or any powerful individuals try and control or limit this freedom. And such a control is termed as censorship. Censorship occurs when certain information, speech or any content of any individual is blocked, removed or prevented from reaching it to the public. While sometimes these steps are taken for protecting national security or public order, it can often lead to suppression of ideas and violation of fundamental rights. In India, under Article 19 (2) there are also certain reasonable restrictions to ensure public order, defamation, decency, morality, contempt of court or the sovereignty of the nation which sometimes lead to a tricky balancing act. Still, it plays a crucial role in protecting press freedom, enabling activism and nurturing the cultural diversity.

The real problem occurs when these restrictions are misused or applied too broadly, where the censorship becomes a violation of right. One of the famous legal cases in India (2015) which dealt with this censorship and freedom of rights of expression, especially on the internet - Shreya Singal v. Union of India.  A surprising arrest in Maharashtra sparked national outrage and a serious debate about freedom of speech and expression in India, in 2012. After the death of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, two young women from Maharashtra faced arrest due to one of them posting a Facebook status questioning why the city of Mumbai was shut down for his funeral, and the other one simply ‘liked’ the post. The police arrested both under Section 66A, which criminalized sending ‘grossly offensive’ or ‘menacing’ messages via electronic communication. 

This incident drew widespread criticism from civil society, media and legal experts. Across the nation, people felt that government was misusing laws to silence free speech on the internet. It was considered overly broad and vague with unclear definition of what counts as ‘offensive’, it left too much power in the hands of the police. 

In response, Shreya Singal, a law student, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A. She argued that it violated Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. This case became a landmark battle for digital rights in India. And may citizens, activists and legal experts joined hands together to argue that laws should not be hold back peaceful opinions or criticisms. In 2015, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of free expression and struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, setting a powerful example for freedom on the internet.

This case stands a landmark moment in India’s legal history because it not only struck down a law but reaffirmed that freedom of expression is the lifeblood of the any democracy. Section 66A was a reminder of how vague and unchecked laws can be misused to silence citizens and create fear around speaking freely, especially in digital space. While the court’s decision was a major victory, challenges to free speech still persist today through censorship of films, online content regulation, internet shutdowns and vague hate speech laws. The struggle is still on and it requires constant public awareness, legal vigilance and civic participation. We as responsible citizens, must stay informed about our rights and raise necessary voices. One should

·       Read and share credible sources

·       Speak up against unjust censorship

·       Question laws which seem vague, broad and suppressive

Most importantly, let’s create a culture where every voice matters because democracy cannot thrive in silence!

 

Closing Credits

Author: Pooja Tiwari

Affiliation: University of Mumbai, Mumbai        

"The views expressed are personal. This article is intended for educational purposes and public discourse. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome!"