Freedom of speech & expression, the soul of our democracy

In a democratic society, freedom of speech and expression is the most cherished rights a citizen enjoys. It is a fundamental right which has persisted to define the vibrancy of our national discourse on issues that encompass everything that we as a people aspire to. A very heavily debated right even by the Constituent Assembly during the framing of the Constitution of India, it made its way into the constitutional scheme in the form of a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution and since then it has been an asset of dissent and discourse for the people of this country. Liberty of thoughts and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount importance under our constitutional scheme. In fact, it is one of the most basic human rights. We simply cannot live without it. The unimpeded articulation of ideas and perspectives, whether by individuals or collective entities, constitutes a fundamental pillar of a progressive and enlightened society, fostering intellectual diversity, democratic discourse, and the advancement of shared human values.
Without freedom of speech and expression of thoughts and views, it is merely impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a robust and healthy democratic society, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by another point of view and not be coercive means. A large number of persons may dislike the views expressed by another, however, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected. In no way, the majority’s disapproval cannot justify silencing the minority!
Unfortunately, there is a growing trend of misusing various organs of the state especially the law enforcement agencies to stifle the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression and as such, it is the role of the courts to make sure that the voice of its citizens are not muted just because it is not a popular view. In the event of the said freedom guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution is violated or compromised, it is the duty of the court to step in and protect the fundamental rights. We do not have any other institution in our democracy which can uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens.
If we become intolerant to opposing views, what right do we have to say that we are a democratic society? As Nagas we pride ourselves as one of the oldest societies that has pragmatically practiced democracy in every sphere of our societal set up which even the Britishers during their occupation of India apparently respected it. Thus the provision of Article 371 A. In essence, the right to freedom of thought and expression is inherent in our values but with changing times this innate tolerance to unpopular views seems to be eroding today. Dreadfully, it is the intellectuals who seem to be the most uncomfortable when it comes to criticisms and when their status quo is being challenged by an opposing view. To be blunt and precise, the role of the intellectuals is to challenge authorities, not serve it. If at all history taught us something, it would be that the world moved by how the intellectuals stood up against authorities and not by being subservient to it. Intellectuals are the immune system of our society to resist and cure the disease of unchecked power but when intellectuals bow down to corrupted authorities, truth and justice kneels with them.
Role of the courts.
Courts have to bear in mind that unlike the olden days, with the explosion of social media platforms to disseminate information, today people have more avenues to raise their voices in so many creative ways. Expression of thoughts have a more nuanced character today. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to make sure that freedom of speech and expression is protected and the rights thereof must not be limitedly applied.
The courts must recognize that free speech is no longer confined to pamphlets, placards and public protest—it thrives on tweets, reels memes, videos, and digital dissent. In an era where social media amplifies every voice, the judiciary’s duty isn’t to restrict expression but to protect its widest possible reach. Social media is evolving itself into a democratizing force and we cannot illegitimize its role in shaping public opinions. The law must therefore evolve beyond archaic constraints—because, a thought silenced is a movement stifled. The courts while interpreting freedom of speech cannot allow itself to be limited by old precedents or narrow interpretations. The Constitution guarantees liberty, not lip service. If the courts fail to defend this expansion of democratic expression, who will?
In the end, the freedom to speak, dissent, debate and disagree is the bed-rock of human dignity, a right which is not only enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but in the very spirit of our democracy. Criticisms, no matter how unpopular or uncomfortable it is, must be met by reason– not repression.
Progress, I believe, demands not just innovation but vigilance– lest we sacrifice the depth of our democracy on the altar of corruption and convenience.
Toshi O. Longkumer,
Advocate, Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench