New Delhi – Last week an explosion of discussions on the limit of freedom of expression in India came to the fore as a series of events created all sorts of fears, from the misuse of digital platforms to hate speech and misinformation to calls for national security breaches. It is no secret that the Right to Freedom (Resolve 19(1)(a)) of the Indian Constitution has become a model of democratic pride and controversy. Indeed, this fundamental right was a central tenet that underpins a vibrant democracy, but there are a number of arguments that suggest that it is time to reconsider the absolute nature of its application.
The Misuse of Free Speech
Most recently, social media platforms have seen an increased prevalence of hate speech, communal propaganda, and misinformation. This has enabled the spread of communal violence, political upheaval, and an unstable public climate. Content falsely disseminated via social media is also actively being combated by fact-checking, but due to the current rapid spread of misleading material, it remains a threat to society.
National Security Concerns
Freedom of speech also has been misused to promote anti-national rhetoric and radical ideologies. Terrorist organizations and separatist groups have made use of such rights to propagate and carry out propaganda and violence. While there are legal instruments like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the lack of stringent restrictions on speech makes them ineffective in reducing terrorist threats to national security.
Social Cohesion at Risk
Uncontrolled speech will lead to degeneration of social harmony. Non-stop inflammatory remarks aimed at specific social groups are all too often the cause of social divisions and violence, in contrast to the reasonable limitation of speech provided for in article 19(2). Further regulations would help prevent such misuse and safeguard public peace.
Learning from Global Examples
Yes, countries like Germany and Singapore have passed laws to curb dangerous speech. Deutschland’s NetzDG law (Network of Data Protection) mandates that illegal content should be removed within 24 hours; Singapore’s POFMA empowers authorities to get involved in combating misinformation. India could follow these examples and maintain responsible speech with a minimal loss of free expression.
Conclusion
Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy, but the misuse of freedom of speech poses serious threats to democracy in India. We also need a national dialogue on whether, in practice, the abolition or revision of article 19(1)(a) should be effected. Implementing more stringent regulation would safeguard national security, bring about social harmony and further encourage responsible use of speech. Through dealing with these issues, India can strengthen the democratic system and protect its citizens from the detrimental impact of uncontrolled speech.
