The famous phrase “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” first appeared in Japan in the 17th century. Mahatma Gandhi’s visual metaphor of the three monkeys is a powerful image. Each monkey covers his eyes, mouth, and ears. This image was later popularized and adopted as a message of peace and tolerance. In contemporary contexts, the symbolism of peace holds significant value for freedom of speech and liberty.
Both of these concepts have been discussed recently. The editor-in-chief of a popular news channel was held in jail in a suicide abetment case. They were released following the Supreme Court’s intervention.
“Whatever be his ideology, at least I don’t even watch his channel. But if constitutional courts do not interfere today, we are undeniably traveling the path of destruction,” Justice Chandrachud said. He added, “The point is, can you deny personal liberty of a person on these allegations?”
According to the judgment, “If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.” The statement referred to the alleged TV entertainer’s prime-time TV show. The logic behind the judgment is simple. It directly validates Gandhi’s three-monkey symbolism—”See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.”
Comedian Kunal Kamra criticized the Supreme Court for the selective fast-tracking of the case. The criticism was harsh, but it highlighted the glaring errors the Court has made in recent years. Many eminent journalists, politicians, scholars, and activists have languished in jail for months. These delays in listing the case have led to injustice against them. Yet, the case was fast-tracked when the loudmouth TV anchor sought interim bail. It was scheduled within 1 to 2 days. One might wonder if personal liberty and freedom of speech are reserved for select individuals in society. Often, these individuals are those close to the current regime.
The Constitutional Law Regarding Freedom of Speech and Contempt: The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech. This right is guaranteed in Article 19. It aims to protect individual rights considered vital by its framers. The right to liberty, as guaranteed in Article 19, includes freedom of speech. It regards expression as one of its six fundamental freedoms. The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the freedom of the press. Yet, Article 19(1)(a) implies media freedom.
Contempt of Court: The constitutional right to freedom of speech has its limits. It would not allow a person to show contempt for the courts. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines Contempt of Court. Contempt of Court refers to civil contempt or criminal contempt under the Act. Nevertheless, judges do not have general immunity from criticism of their judicial conduct. This is allowed as long as it is made in good faith. It must also constitute genuine criticism rather than an effort to impair the administration of justice. // source-Wikipedia
Case of Prashant Bhushan: In the past, senior Supreme Court advocate and activist Prashant Bhushan was penalized Rs 1. This was due to his tweets regarding India’s CJI. His tweets also criticized the judiciary’s functioning over the past six years. The case attracted attention. It initiated widespread discussions about the fundamental right of citizens—freedom of speech.
When do we cross the line?
There is a fine line between the privilege of freedom of expression and the abuse of fundamental rights. This line is outlined in contempt of court provisions. Criminal court proceedings can address abusers. Still, it’s interesting to note that there is no clear-cut definition of the scope of freedom of speech. It is also unclear how far one can go. The judges decide whether the case is contemptuous, taking into account each patient’s circumstances.
Even the judgment varies from judge to judge. One can’t draw a line (Laxman Rekha) between the right to free speech and contempt. Hate speech by various political leaders also falls within the purview of abuses of freedom of speech. In common parlance, these judicial concepts are complex to grasp. Thus, individuals remain silent during contempt proceedings in Court.
Gandhi’s Philosophy: Gandhian philosophy asserts that individuals must always strive to uphold the truth. In the service of that truth, individuals are justified in disobeying laws or norms. Nonetheless, they must be willing to suffer the consequences. Gandhi employed nonviolent techniques to expel colonial oppressors from India. He opposed British governance and policies and led movements against them. Eventually, he was successful, and the battle for truth over falsehood was won.
Similarly, non-exploitation (both of others’ and one’s own) is a central Buddhist principle. Wrong speech is discouraged because it hurts others and taints the speaker’s soul with anger, hatred, greed, and delusion. The Buddhist idea aligns with Gandhian philosophy, which promotes stability and tolerance.
“I want freedom for the full expression of my personality.”-Gandhi
Before speaking or tweeting, it is essential to remember Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy and the Buddha’s teachings. The truth must be upheld, but harsh words should be strictly avoided. If one wants to criticize and showcase the legitimate drawbacks, it’s okay if it doesn’t sound rude.
The Witty Stride 