High Court Judge Arrested
Commented something for someone
They or anyone else think that it was a defamatory comment.
So brother, this is an offence.
Yes friends, It’s a good thing in our Democracy that here we have full guarantee of Right to Expression but there are some limitations as well, which if we do not agree, we can get into trouble.
Article 19 (1) of the Constitution gives us the right, that we can express ourselves openly.
The Government of India introduced sec 66A in the IT Act 2000 to control it, but it was invalidated by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case.
Then why judge sahib have been arrested?
Friends, when constitution on one side gives us rights, there is also the responsibility on us that we should respect the rights of others.
In this era of social media, how far is our Right to Expression.
What are our limit?
Can we joke with anyone? Can we criticize anyone? Can we comment on someone’s positive / negative aspect?
If we have a wrong comment on social media, what can we do?
To understand all these things, we will also refer to some legal cases.
First of all, let us understand the issue of Judge Sahab.
Justice CS Karnan, the former judge of Kolkata and Madras High Court, was arrested by Chennai Police on 2 Dec 2020. There is an allegation on him that in one of his videos he made objectionable comments about some senior judges and their families. This video went viral on social media.
A lawyer from Madras High Court petitioned the Supreme Court. CJI SA Bobde ordered the arrest and said “It’s a horrific act of violence and an affront to the dignity of all women”.
So brother, freedom of expression went hard on the judge. But because he must have crossed the limits, then only the CJI has given so serious comments.
According to Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, every Indian citizen has right to express himself by words, writing, gesture, by any sign or by any other means without any censorship and without any fear
Wow! How nice it is to read.
But where are the rights of Judge Sahab. Kangna Ranaut is summoned by Mumbai Police repeatedly. More than 100 FIRs for the same statement on Arnab Goswami.
The answer to all this is in Article 19 clause (2) which most people either do not read or do not want to understand.
Article 19 (2) says that the government can make some laws restricting the freedom of expression when the matter is sensitive. Sensitive subjects have also been defined.
Sovereignty and integrity of India
Security of the State
Friendly relation with foreign States
Public Order
Decency ओर Morality
Contempt of Court
Defamation
Incitement of an Offence
Apparently there are 8 subjects and they seems reasonable, but are quite broad in itself.
Section 66A of the IT Act 2000 was one such restrictive law, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
It happened that when in 2012 Bala Sahab Thackerye died, Maharashtra State Govt. declared a holiday All markets and public transportation were all closed. Someone made a negative comment on social media which went viral. Mumbai Police arrested two girls for the crime of sharing the message. Big discussion went on and ultimately in 2015 the Supreme Court limited the sec 66A in the Shreya Singhal case.
While the government and the court try to protect our freedom of speech, law and order have to be maintained as well.
After the removal of Article 370 in August 2019, Central Govt. felt that the law and order situation in J&K could be disturbed, so the Internet service was blocked.
There was a lot of opposition and then in January 2020, the 3 member bench of Apex court, headed by Justice N V Rammana, ordered to restore Internet services in J&K and said,
“The question that comes to us again and again is whether people’s freedom is more important or their safety. We do not want to get into whether freedom is necessary or security. Our concern is that a balance must be drawn between people’s freedom and security. We just want to ensure that the citizens get all their adequate rights and independence, as well as their safety. “
The Supreme Court held that the right to use Internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a).
Since there is no separate regulation or law for social media yet, it is being governed since IT Act 2000. The sections of IPC and CrPC are also aplied for any misconduct or offence.
Sec 499, 500 of IPC for defamation
abuse, religious sentiments, sec 153A, 295A of IPC,
Insulting modesty of women – sec 509 of IPC
Hate Speech sec 153A, 153B of IPC and, sec 295 of CrPC
Sedition – sec 124A of IPC.
there are many such provisions.
Use of Social media increased with the spread of internet.
In social media, we can collectively include social networking, blogs, micro blogs, vlogs, wikis, social news etc. Social media has increased in popularity due to cheap internet data and improvement in internet services. Every man is now sharing his opinion. Is observing others. This has benefited to get public opinion in many issues.
Many decisions of the government are affected by this public opinion. Now, many Judges of the Supreme Court have publically stated that the impact of social media posts comes on our judgments.
But the negative part of it is that fake news and cyber propaganda go viral very quickly and some people have gained expertise and made business in it. Especially activities like cybercrime, defamation, invasion of privacy, incitement of offences, racist remarks, stalking, abuse, hacking, and harassment get a free space.
Pre Screening of Content
In December 2011, the Govt. of India asked some big social sites like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft to prepare a framework that the content should be screened before being posted. The Govt. said that we do not want to censor the freedom of citizens but want to stop the uploading of offensive content.
But these websites said that this is quite difficult because the content being uploaded in India is too much and it is also difficult to decide what is defamatory and what is not.
So now the government has the option to make regulation instead of censorship.
There is also a big problem that most popular platforms’ servers are in foreign.
Certainly, the Supreme Court has included the use of Internet in Article 19 clause (1) , in view of the need of the Internet. But now we have to bear the responsibility of how to use it properly. If we use this freedom for acts of envy, peace-making, affecting the integrity of India, then this freedom can also be taken away in the future. As a responsible Indian, it is the responsibility of every citizen to use this freedom properly and also to make his acquaintances aware of its correct use.
