Freedom of speech and regulation

India is a country where freedom of expression is permitted. An Indian citizen has the right and freedom to criticize the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers. One can circulate his opinion on social media in the new era and before that, such criticisms were generally done only through media. This has changed completely today. This is a change with the seal of time. This will help to give more meaning and dimension to democracy.

India, the world's largest democracy, is respected by other countries in the name of freedom of expression. However, many of India's neighboring countries have not permitted such freedom of expression, especially China. Although China is one of the main economic powers in the world, neither a native nor a foreigner is allowed to criticize their government. China has adopted the method of killing people who violate it by killing them with a tank or putting them in prison for life till now. India's strength lies in not adopting this method. However, seeing this power as a weakness, some make false propaganda and hate speeches. This is tantamount to poisoning the pure waters of freedom of expression.

Hate statements should be challenged and prosecuted whether it is a minister, a religious leader or an ordinary citizen. Provisions for that have been written in the Constitution and the Code of Laws and there is no need for a re-legislation. If new laws are needed, the Supreme Court has pointed that the Parliament has the power to do so, which is 100% correct. The Supreme Court has ruled that excessive restrictions cannot be imposed on the statements of those in positions of responsibility like ministers. The five-judge bench clarified by a majority verdict (4-1) that more restrictions than those in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, which prescribes restrictions on freedom of expression, are not possible in the case of ministers, MPs, MLAs, etc and that those restrictions are complete. Justice B V Nagaratna, who agreed with most of the judgment, dissented on certain points and wrote a separate judgment. Disagreeing with the majority position, it has been stated in the dissenting judgment that the statements made by the ministers other than in personal matters fall under the scope of collective responsibility of the cabinet. Comments should not be made to stir up people, to applaud and to spurn others. Be it a minister, a political leader or a common citizen, that should be the first thing to follow. For that, self-regulation is more important than legal regulation.