A recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court of India, serves as a timely reminder that the right to free expression, enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, carries an equally compelling duty of restraint. In a case highlighting the perils of unchecked speech-particularly on social media-the Court urged every citizen to learn “to control his tongue and his words,” warning that liberty without responsibility can erode the very foundations of public discourse. This declaration underscores the delicate equilibrium between individual freedoms and the broader imperatives of sovereignty, public order, and morality protected under Article 19(2).The twin provisions of Article 19 illustrate the framers’ vision, that is- free speech must flourish, yet not at the expense of societal harmony. By reaffirming this balance, the Court has sought to stem a tide of vitriol and misinformation that threatens to drown out reasoned debate. At a moment when the space for dissent and a free press appears under relentless strain, the judgment offers a measured path forward, invoking neither sweeping censorship nor reckless license, but a principle of proportionate restraint. Courts in India have long grappled with the contours of defamation, consistently holding that truth alone cannot constitute a basis for legal action. Only statements that lack veracity and tarnish reputations unjustly permit recourse to the law. Yet this guarded tolerance for robust-and sometimes harsh-critique cannot mask a more troubling trend such as – the rise of anonymous online attacks that defy accountability. In digital group chats and sprawling social media networks, malicious content can be forwarded ad infinitum, leaving targets defenseless and regulators scrambling in the dark. Such proliferation of untraceable abuse calls for a dedicated oversight mechanism. An independent monitoring body, equipped to investigate complaints against pseudonymous or faceless offenders, could restore some measure of order to the tangled web of internet discourse. By vetting allegations, tracing origins where possible, and facilitating rapid takedown of defamatory content and holding those guilty of offence to task would reinforce the principle that free speech must coexist with the right to safety and dignity. However, responsible speech cannot become a pretext for stifling legitimate criticism. Governments bear the duty to rein in clear abuses, as the Supreme Court emphasized, but they must resist the temptation to brand dissent as disloyalty. In healthy democracies, power is tempered not by muzzling inconvenient voices, but by subjecting every critique-however sharp-to the test of reason, open dialogue and healthy debates minus personal attacks. The true measure of the nation’s constitutional promise is how citizens respond to dissenters, not how they reward only the agreeable.If the judiciary’s admonition helps curb the worst excesses of online vituperation, it will mark progress. On the part of the citizens, they must also guard against overreach, ensuring that mechanisms designed to police speech do not become instruments of suppression. Upholding free expression means tolerating discomfort, embracing diversity of thought, and trusting citizens to discern fact from falsehood. In striking this balance, India will honor both the letter and spirit of Article 19, nurturing a public sphere where liberty and responsibility walk hand in hand.
Sunday, July 20, 2025