Be intolerant of intolerance(IE Ed)

Be intolerant of intolerance(IE Ed)

Context

Author justifiesrecent SC judgement on petition urging for a ban on the movie ‘An insignificant man’ & criticizes the spate of violent outbursts against ‘Padmavati’ maker Sanjay Bhansali& actress DeepikaPadukone

Right to free speech & expression

• Article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of India
• Restrictions: Fundamental right to speech & expression is not an absolute one. Article 19 (2) allows for reasonable restrictions to be imposed on all fundamental rights, including that of freedom to speech and expression
• It can be restricted on the grounds of decency, public order or defamation. However, the restriction imposed should not be excessive or arbitrary

Whose hurt sentiments are to be considered?

As per judicial decisions, in such petitions, sentiments are to be considered of level-headed reasonable persons and not of fanatics who sense insult in everything

Petition against An insignificant man

Petitioner had urged SC to stay the nation-wide screening of the film as it portrayed him in a negative light and he had the right of not being portrayed in a derogatory manner.

SC’s reply:

• Bench stated that freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and the said right should not be ordinarily interfered with. The freedom of expression should not be restrained except in a manner which is already prescribed in the law.
• Courts should allow for creative liberty in such cases

Padmavati controversy

Padmavati maker Sanjay Bhansali& actress DeepikaPadukone have been a target of a slew of violent threats by an organisation called KarniSena. The organisation has justified such conduct stating that Padmavati who is a devi to the Rajput community has been depicted in a false and objectionable light

Three major observations

Author makes 3 major observations regarding this whole situation

1. A majority of the people who are bursting with anger have not seen the film
2. The objected scenes are imaginary, not factual
3. A democratic way: Aggrieved sections of society can certainly approach the appropriate authorities (CBFC) or the courts to restrain exhibition of the movie after submitting credible evidence about alleged distortion of history. They can write and publish articles or even produce a documentary against the movie and urge people not to see it and boycott the cinema halls. But the right to protest cannot descend to vandalising cinema halls and assaulting Bhansali

Conclusion

Author concludes by stating that as the 4^th pillar of democracy media owes a responsibility towards the people of India to highlight this SC judgement