The events at Ramjas College in Delhi University, the ensuing protests and the vicious trolling of a girl student Gurmehar Kaur, which saw Union minister Kiren Rijiju criticise Kaur rather than take on the trolls, all misconceive and truncate the right to freedom of speech.

True, the Constitution places reasonable restrictions on this freedom, on grounds of sovereignty and national integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Free speech is not meant only for those who agree with a dominant view; it matters most when it comes to unpopular, minority views. If those who disagree with such views unleash violence, and create a threat to public order, what should the state do? Some Delhi policemen present when Ramjas College students were allegedly attacked by ABVP activists, who sensed a threat to Indian nationalism from a speaker, chose to take off their name tags and beat up Ramjas students.

Minus such blatant partisanship, if the state merely used the public order proviso to gag the minority opinion, that would still fall short of defending the right to freedom of expression. That would only be an invitation for people to stage violence to muzzle opinion they disagree with. The countrys courts are the final arbiters of when a restriction on free speech is warranted, but in a technical sense. It is the lived practice of democracy with citizens actively defending free speech, even of the kind they disagree with that will give substance to this and other fundamental rights.

In this light, it is welcome that many students, teachers and others have come out against violent suppression of free speech and lent support to Gurmehar Kaur, including senior minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Economic Times.

Excerpt from:

The right and wrong of free speech - Economic Times (blog)