Homogenised views a threat to democracy
WHEN men govern themselves, it is they — and no one else — who must pass judgment upon unwisdom, unfairness and danger,” said political scientist Alexander Meiklejohn. He added: “And that means that unwise ideas must have a hearing as well as wise ones, unfair as well as fair, dangerous as well as safe, un-American as well as American, if then, on any occasion in the US it is allowable, in that situation, to say that the Constitution is a good document, it is equally allowable, in that situation, to say that the Constitution is a bad document.”
The 134-page April 5 judgment of a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud would always be remembered and cited as a landmark pronouncement on the freedom of speech, sealed-cover jurisprudence, natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative actions. The court preferred the expression of diverse views because democracy is nothing but the government by choice. People cannot make choices if various alternative views are not placed in the public domain.
Justice Chandrachud’s commitment to civil liberties is widely known; in paragraph 166 of the judgment, he boldly observed in his characteristic style: “An independent press is vital for the robust functioning of a democratic republic. Its role in a democratic society is crucial, for it shines a light on the functioning of the state. The press has a duty to speak truth to power and present citizens with hard facts enabling them to make choices that propel democracy in the right direction.”
He further opined, “A homogenised view on issues that range from socio-economic polity to political ideologies would pose grave dangers to democracy.” The Bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli was not convinced by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s argument that Malayalam news channel MediaOne was critical of the Citizenship Amendment Bill and National Register of Citizens. The association of some of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind’s (JEI-H) cadre was also not important as the 1992 ban on this organisation was quashed by the judiciary in 1994 and it is no more a banned organisation. Besides, the ministry could not prove that shareholders of the channel were JEI-H members.
Demolishing the argument of national security in denying security clearance to MediaOne, the libertarian jurist-judge went on to say: “The critical views of the channel, MediaOne, on government policies cannot be termed anti-establishment. The use of such a terminology, in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment. The action of the ministry by denying security clearance to a media channel on the basis of the views which the channel is constitutionally entitled to hold produces a chilling effect on free speech, and, in particular, on press freedom. Criticism of governmental policy can by no stretch of imagination be brought within the fold of any of the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2).”
Framers of the Indian Constitution saw merit in Scottish historian James Mill’s argument, who had said: “To suppress men’s freedom to criticise whom and what they please is, therefore, to proscribe the conditions which foster the production of all that is new in science, of all that is great in art, of all that is boldly, even alarmingly original, in thought. It is to substitute for the keen and bracing air of criticism the hothouse atmosphere of flattery of subservience.”
The apex court’s judgment reaffirms the citizens’ right to dissent from judicial decisions or government policies. Accordingly, in my view, laws related to contempt of court, seditious speech (which doesn’t incite violence), criminal defamation and blasphemy must be reviewed.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has in unequivocal terms not only emphasised the importance of criticism of his government, but rather went to the extent of saying that the media should be so frank and independent that governments must fear it. In an interview in September 2016, the PM had said that the government’s criticism was welcome. He said, “It is my firm belief that there should be toughest possible analysis and criticism of governments and their work, otherwise democracy cannot function.” On May 28, 2017, the PM had welcomed criticism of his government’s performance as “it is healthy for democracy that the government’s work must be tested on every touchstone”. He had added, “Constructive criticism strengthens democracy; for an aware nation, an awakened nation, this churning is important.”
Thus, the latest judgment, rather than being a setback to the Modi government, is basically a reiteration of the Prime Minister’s views. It is unfortunate that in spite of such views from the head of the government, India’s ranking on the World Press Freedom Index has been going down. In 2022, we were ranked 150th out of 180 countries. This judgment gives us an opportunity to improve our international image in terms of media freedom. As the G20 president, we must make concerted efforts to improve India’s international rankings.
Freedom of speech has great value for any vibrant democracy. As a matter of fact, in the capitalist marketplace, the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted amid the competition. The underlying assumption is that there is a free-market mechanism for ideas in a war for values which makes a man human and able to examine critically what is good and to choose what serves his interests and those of his fellowmen.
The court struck down the denial of security clearance to the news channel on procedural grounds and the grounds of ‘natural justice’. It rejected the national security argument for not disclosing the grounds of denial as the ministry’s lawyers were unable to demonstrate that national security concerns outweigh the duty of ensuring fairness.
