A Flawed Analysis of India’s Constitutional Guarantee of Freedom
Harsh Desai 26 October 2017
The precocious lawyer, Abhinav Chandrachud, has come out with his third book in four years and it is a timely treatise on the burning issue of free speech. The book is in two parts; the first deals with the evolution of Article 19 1(a) of the Constitution which guarantees the right of free speech, and the second part is a detailed analysis of Article 19(2) which lays down all the exceptions to the right of free speech in India. All exceptions are analysed according to how they evolved under the British India and post-independence era. Further, the author contrasts the law in British India with the contemporary law in Britain and has also thrown light on some important principles of free speech arising out of American jurisprudence.
 
The central thesis of the author, about which I was sceptical when I read it in the early part of the book, is that nothing much has changed in the law as it stood in British India because of the enactment of the Constitution. The Constitution and the jurisprudence that followed the enactment of the Constitution are not very different from the law which existed in British India. In the raucous democracy that we live in, I find that an astonishing thing to say and, though towards the end of the book, my scepticism had diminished, it had not altogether disappeared. To be fair, the author himself provides the jurisprudence which has changed and provides the cases which are, obviously, different from what existed in British India, as I will point out later. The author says, in the introduction: “That the restrains in the press imposed in independent India have resembled those imposed on the press in colonial India despite the existence of a fundamental right of free speech under the Constitution.” He ends the introduction by saying that “there are many other such examples and it certainly cannot be said that Indians do not enjoy any right to free speech whatsoever. However, this book will suggest that when one looks at the exceptions to the right to free speech which exists today, the conclusion one arrived at is that the enactment of the Constitution in 1950 made little substantial difference to our right to speak freely.”
 
You have to just switch on your television and watch a rabid debate at 9pm to know that this is not entirely true. You have to only open the newspapers in the morning to see the vibrant discussions; my only complaint with the author is that, to say that we have limited right of free speech is grossly underestimating the Constitutional guarantees. Adding to these traditional means of expressing ourselves are social media. No one has accused British India of being a vibrant democracy. Despite the aberrations, no one can accuse independent India of being otherwise. There are occasional books that are banned. There may be films which do not make it to the public domain and, occasionally, there are defamation suits which try to silence a magazine or a newspaper; but these are aberrations rather than the rule. 
 
It is true that there is some continuity in the law laid down before and after the enactment of the Constitution but that is the nature of common law. Common law is law made by judges and tends to follow earlier decisions, unless those earlier decisions are outdated or completely wrong. The author himself admits that the exceptions engraved in Article 19(2) to the right of free speech came from an earlier time. These exceptions include restrains for defamation, contempt of court, public order, etc, and most have a long history in ‘judge-made’ law. So, to expect a completely new legal environment just because of the enactment of the Constitution is a little naive. However, the book is sumptuously researched and contains many interesting cases from India, England and America (some of the best nuggets are quotations from American judges) and the insight into the enactment of Articles 19(1a) and 19(2) of the Constitution through the Constituent Assembly debates is superb. This is an extremely enjoyable book for all the information it provides. In India judges have adopt the law laid down of New York Times vs Sullivan, the landmark American decision restricting the right of public officials to sue for defamation. And they have upheld online speech, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India. Today’s India cannot be compared to laws governing free speech in British India. 
Comments
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback