[Answered] Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is viewed as eroding free speech. Critically analyze its implications for constitutional liberties, democratic discourse, and the principle of judicial independence in India.

In a constitutional democracy like India, the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is a cornerstone of individual liberty and democratic participation. However, recent judicial trends reflect an increasing sensitivity to sentiments, often prioritizing decorum and societal outrage over constitutional protections. This shift not only endangers free speech but also raises critical concerns about judicial independence, democratic discourse, and constitutional integrity.

Implications for Constitutional Liberties

1. Misinterpretation of Article 19(1)(a): The Constitution protects speech unless it falls within narrow exceptions under Article 19(2). Courts increasingly police content based on sentiment, diluting constitutionally protected liberties.
2. Lowering the Legal Threshold for Restrictions: Recent decisions equate emotional discomfort with legal harm. The judiciary overlooks the required standards—like incitement to violence—as laid down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
3. Process as Punishment: Courts often refuse to quash FIRs for innocuous remarks (e.g., calling PM “coward”), citing early stage of investigation. This allows police action to become punitive in itself.
4. Overuse of Ambiguous Laws: Vague provisions like Section 153 or public mischief clauses of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are invoked, blurring lines between sedition, satire, and sarcasm.

Erosion of Democratic Discourse

1. Suppression of Dissenting and Scholarly Voices: Judicial responses to cases like historian Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s critique or Kamal Haasan’s linguistic comments prioritize “sentiments of the masses” over informed discourse and academic freedom.
2. Validation of Mob Censorship: Advising public apologies for lawful speech—as seen in the Kamal Haasan case—encourages mobs to take offence, knowing it will receive legal validation rather than pushback.
3. Discouragement of Artistic and Digital Expression: In Ranveer Allahbadia’s podcast case, the court’s concern with vulgarity over legality reflects moral supervision, restricting creators under arbitrary cultural norms.
4. Chilling Effect on Everyday Speech: Judicial scrutiny of minor expressions deters ordinary citizens from expressing views, especially online. This is contrary to the principle recognized in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950).

Impact on Judicial Independence

1. Judiciary as Curator of Culture: Courts increasingly act as custodians of national pride and social civility instead of guardians of constitutional freedom—thus inviting political and cultural influence into adjudication.
2. Deviation from Principle-Centric Jurisprudence: Emphasis is shifting from protecting the right of the speaker to ensuring comfort for the listener. This reverses the fundamental role of courts in a liberal democracy.
3. Loss of Neutrality and Objectivity: The judiciary’s refusal to check state overreach, especially in high-profile or military-related speech, indicates diminishing judicial distance from state interests.
4. Failure to Enforce “Chilling Effect” Doctrine: Though acknowledged in judgments like Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023), the chilling effect is seldom used as a test to protect freedom in practice.

Conclusion

To protect India’s democratic spirit, courts must prioritize liberty over sentiment. A principled, rights-based jurisprudence is vital to preserve judicial independence and prevent the erosion of constitutional freedoms.