This article is by Ragini Rathore, student of Law Faculty of Agra College.

Introduction

Freedom of speech is a person’s accurate to speak his or her own sentiments, principles, or thoughts, without having to fear that the administration will react against him, limit him, or edit him in any way. The period “freedom of expression” is often used interchangeably, though the “look” in this intelligence has more to do with the way in which the communication is being connected (i.e. via a painting, a song, an essay, etc.). The idea of freedom of speech days back to a time long beforehand the Constitution was recruited, possibly as far back as Athens in the 5th or 6th periods, B.C.

Background

Freedom of speech and expression occupies a very high position in the Constitution of India because the Preamble to the Constitution of India itself guarantees to its citizens the “Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.” The framers of the Constitution had given us the fundamental freedom of speech and expression in India. A Democracy can survive only if there is a free and fair exchange of ideas. Free speech does not imply that a person has the license to say anything that comes out of his mouth. The speech should not be in such a way that it aggravates or influences people to commit any kind of offences that disturb public order and peace or creates a sense of hatred towards persons belonging to any particular caste, community, religion, etc or any form of speech that tarnishes the reputation of another person. Article 19(1)(a) provides that the citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Such speech should always be within permissible limits prescribed under Article 19(2) in the form of reasonable restrictions. With that being said the exposition of truth should not be counted in as an infringement of free speech.

Synopsis 

While repudiating a preventive bail plea marched by a YouTuber accused of making derogatory comments against an emeritus Army Officer on his station, the Punjab and Haryana High Court made convinced observations.

Lately, the Punjab and Haryana High Court completed important comments on the limits of allowable free speech while repudiating preliminary bail to a YouTuber suspect of uploading insulting physical against a retired military officer in the rank of Indian Army Major on his network ‘Saabka Sainik Sangharsh Committee’.

However, declining the bail plea, Justice HS Madaan specified that even a shared man’s standing, dignity, honour, and rank cannot be taken flippantly in such away. Though every Indian inhabitant has the right to express his opinions on the matter, freedom of speech does not mean that one can go to the degree of making wild and hateful claims.

The YouTuber demanded in its video that the jawans of an exact unit were controlled for deteriorating to salute the plaintiff as the wife of the impressive officer of the unit.

The petitioner demanded that the comments produced her severe mental suffering and misuse, as the YouTuber used rude and hateful commentaries.

Also, she proved that through his doctoral hate languages against the Indian Army Units, the YouTuber tried to generate bitterness and disagreement. In his video, which was an act of thoughtful breach of security moving national welfares, he also used official leaflets and videos of the doings of the Army Formations.

Deprival of Anticipatory bail

The Additional Sessions Judge of Ambala had before deprived of the anticipatory bail of the YouTuber, saying that he had unsuccessful to prove any of the rights he made in contradiction of the superannuated Major.

The Additional Sessions Judge had lined the statements of the YouTuber as slandering the standing of the plaintiff, particularly because she was a retired officer herself.

The YouTuber succumbed in minutes before the High Court that it had so far collaborated in the study. He added additionally that other people even made many comments in the video and that he should not be made to suffer for them. He avowed, furthermore, that his mobile phone had also been detained.

Yet, the Court discharged his plea, uttering that anticipatory bail was an optional relief to protect innocent countries from abuse. The Judge found in this case that there were ‘serious in contradiction of the YouTuber.’

Since he had retrieved videocassettes and used armed information that was incomplete and secret, the charges were all the purer. The Court recognized that this had to be examined from a national safety viewpoint.

The bail plea was disallowed, noting that the YouTuber’s protective interrogation was suitable to control his reasons for the placement of the video.

Limitations on Free Speech 

According to intelligence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court lately made accessary observations on the bounds of free speech while deteriorating the anticipatory bail to a YouTuber. The YouTuber is suspect of posting hateful gratified on his channel ‘Saabka Sainik Sangharsh Committee’ against a superannuated military officer who used to be Main in the Indian Army.

Justice HS Madaan disallowed the bail plea and specified: “Such type of suspect encroaching upon the standing, prestige, honor, and position of even a common man cannot be taken flippantly. However every citizen of India has got a right to express his opinions in the matter, but then freedom of speech does not mean that one can go to the degree of creating wild and malicious allegations.”

In the video, the YouTuber had supposedly tried to found that jawans of an exact unit were harshly chastised for not acknowledging the plaintiff. The video strained to found that the jawans wanted to salute her as she was the wife of the Unit’s Impressive Officer.

The plaintiff, in her appeal, stated that the YouTuber had applied insulting and derogatory comments against her. According to her, these commentaries caused her acute mental trauma and nuisance.

The plaintiff also asserted that the accused tried to “create discontentment and rift through his doctored hate speeches” against “the Units of Indian Army”. 

According to the petition, the suspects also made use of authorized leaflets and limited videos in his YouTube video. Supposedly, this use of restricted video was a serious opening of security that essentially cooperated national safety.

An Additional Sessions Judge at Ambala had earlier disallowed the YouTuber’s preventive bail. The judge at that time stated that the accused failed to prove any of the declarations he had made in contradiction of the retired Major.

The Additional Sessions Judge declared that the YouTuber’s comments maligned the complainant’s dignity and reputation. The complainant was a retired officer herself.

In proceedings, the YouTuber stated that he had cooperated in the examination so far. The defendant also added that the comments on the video were made by others. He stated that he was not answerable for these comments. Furthermore, his mobile phone was also detained, he avowed.

But the Court rejected his plea. The Court tinted that anticipatory bail was an optional relief to defend “acquitted persons from harassment”. But in this specific case, the Judge experiential that there were “grave and serious allegations against the petitioner.”

The Judge said that the claims against him were also thoughtful because he had got army-material that was carefully limited and confidential. Thus, the case had to be explored from the standpoint of national refuge as well, the Judge settled.

Conclusion

“No man can be appreciative at cost of his honor; no women can be thankful at cost of her chastity and no nation can be grateful at the cost of his liberty”              – Daniel O Connell

If the upkeep of democracy is the basis of free speech and expression, society is similarly entitled to order freedom of speech and expression by self-governing expression. There is a correlate duty not to inhibit the freedom of others. Each person is enabled to maintain his self-esteem and standing. Nobody has the right to disparage another person’s self-respect and reputation. Therefore, the freedom of speech and expression is tolerated as long it is not defamatory or hateful to one’s freedom. If such allowed speech and expression is false and is so irresponsible to cause violence then it does not get the defence of the legitimate right. The right to free speech is always been careful as one of the core values on which egalitarianism survives and flourishes.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court completed the observation when declining an anticipatory bail plea favoured by a YouTuber suspect of making offensive remarks in contradiction of a retired Army Officer on his network.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently made relevant observations on the limits of allowable free speech while declining anticipatory bail to a YouTuber who is accused of having uploaded insulting gratified on his station ‘Saabka Sainik Sangharsh Committee’ against a retired armed officer in the rank Major from the Indian Army (Kapil Dev v. the State of Haryana).

Reference

• https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/freedom-of-speech-not-extent-of-wild-and-malicious-
• allegations-ph-hc
• https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/147242625/?formInput=OSP
• https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/freedom-of-speech-doesnt-mean-that-one-can-go-to-the-extent-of-making-wild-and-malicious-allegations-ph-hc-denies-pre-arrest-bail-to-youtuber-164441

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: