MADURAI

Answering whether free speech can be denied, even though it can be regulated, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently held: ‘This is a land of free speech and that requires no emphasis.” The court was hearing a petition seeking permission for holding a public meeting.

The court asked the authorities to consider the representation and grant permission. In the last couple of years, the High Court Bench has seen a large number of petitions seeking direction to the authorities to consider their plea for conducting events. Though time and again the court has urged the authorities concerned to consider the plea themselves and grant permission, the rejections are made in the name of public order. Reacting on the rejection order, in a particular case, the court said it reflected the anxiety of the authorities that if permission is accorded, it might be misused. “There cannot be freedom of speech if there is no freedom of thought and conscience, and they do not thrive where equality does not prevail,” the court observed.

Advocate L. Shaji Chellan said, “The authorities can regulate the conduct of the meeting instead of denying permission outright, thereby curtailing a citizen’s right. It also applies to traditional sports. Permission can be granted based on existing orders. However, organisers are being made to approach the court.”

Advocate S. Vanchinathan said, “Any voice against the government is curtailed. Dissenting views are opposed. Thoothukudi incident is one such example.”

The court also puts the onus on the organisers to act responsibly. “The Constitutional rights find its pair with the Constitutional duties. He who is conscious of his Constitutionally guaranteed right and demands it should also be prepared to submit to performing the Constitutional right that goes with it,” the court said.

“If Constitutionalism is to survive, it is not just the responsibility of the State but that of every citizen to carry the spirit in his heart and soul. For a citizen to exercise his right under the Constitution responsibly, he need not look to the State, for he owes his existence not to the mercy of the State, but to the might of the Constitution,” the court said.

Advocate S. Srinivasa Raghavan said these petitions do add to the burden of the court. “The executive is refusing to take responsibility. It does not want to be blamed if anything goes wrong. Once it comes before the court, they act on the direction, thereby the burden is passed on to the court.”

However, police sources said: “Since a large number of people seek permission for conducting public meeting, they must be scrutinised carefully. We have to look into each representation or application made and the larger interest of the public also has to be taken into consideration. The rejections are largely made only after considering the law and order situation. Public order cannot be put at stake.”

The court has made it mandatory for the organisers, henceforth, to give a written undertaking to the authorities that they will take responsibility that none of the speakers while exercising their Right of Free Speech and Expression will violate the provisions under the Constitution. No picture, cartoon or caricature, poster or any form of visual depiction of any religious symbol or image be used that can hurt the religious sentiments of people nor anything banned under law put up at the venue.

The court observed that the public space ought to be a market place of fertile and refreshing socio-political and economic ideas and not a cacophony of abuses and incendiary speeches. Constitutional duties may not be enforceable, yet cannot be ignored. “....it becomes the responsibility of every citizen to protect the constitution, not in fear of any State regulations, but in respect for the Constitution, and in the realisation of this responsibility.”