DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 7th December, 2020
CITATION: AIRONLINE 2020 SC 930
FACTS:
The case of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India was a case decided in December 2020. This was a very crucial case deciding whether the freedom of speech can hurt religious sentiments, or insight violence in the country. This case revolves around the petition filled by the petitioner Amish Devgan, a well-known TV news journalist. Several FIRs (First Information Report) were filled against him across country alleging him for using derogatory language for one of a Muslin saint, Hazrat Moinuddin Chisti. His statement, “aakrantak chisti aaya…. aakrantak chisti aaya… lootera chisti aaya ….uske baad dharm badle”, which when translated into English means “Terrorist Chisti came….Terriorist Chisti came…. Thief Chisti came…. Then religion changed” insighted aggression between the Muslim community. He said this statement while hosting his debate show ‘Aar Paar’ on news channel, News18 India. He was accused of demeaning a great saint of a community, inciting religious hatred. He received various abusive words. Threats were given to him and his family on various social media platforms. In order to protect himself for these threats, and to get all the FIRs quashed, which were filled against him, he further applied for writ petition of certiorari and mandamus. Following is how the case further was heard in the Supreme Court of India.
ISSUE RAISED:
There were few things upon which the court had to decide. The issues which were raised at the time of proceeding of Amish Devgan vs. Union of Indian, in honorable Supreme Court of India were as following:
- Whether the words or language used by the petitioner are derogatory or insulting in nature, which may lead to feeling of hatred and discontent in the country?
- Whether the word degrade the pride of the nation?
- Whether several FIRs filled against the petitioner are maintainable?
- Whether petition should be dismissed under Article 32 of the Constitution unconcerned?
CONTENTION:
Arguments by appellant
The petitioner in his contention said that he didn’t refer his statement to the Muslim Saint Hazrat Moinuddin Chisti. Rather he was talking about Alauddin Khilji. He said that after realizing his mistake, he immediately uploaded a video apologizing, and explaining that whatever happened, happened mistakenly, and that degrading the name of Chisti wasn’t his intention.
He further asked the honorable court to quash all the FIRs that was registered against him for the same offence. He also contended that this infringes his right to freedom of speech that is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.
Arguments by respondent
The justifications by the petitioner were opposed by the state of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh. The respondent in their argument stated that the petitioner is habitual of using such words which can hurt public sentiment.
Also, they stated that using a word thrice in a debate cannot be unintentional and by mistake. According to them, even the apology video uploaded by the petitioner, was done after the filling of FIRs.
They argued that Article 19, that is freedom of speech, come with some restriction.
RATIONALE:
Justifications by the petitioner were opposed by the state of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh.
According to them the assertion of repeating the same word (aakrantak chisti) twice and lootera chisti in a single debate, clearly shows the intention of the petitioner to demean the renowned Muslim saint.
The court took into consideration, various established international laws that lay down the ambit of freedom of hate speech. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1966, European Convention on Human Rights, are such laws which helped court realizing that freedom of speech comes with ‘some restrictions’
The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to Member States defines hate speech as everything that incites, promote or justify violence, hatred, unrest or anti nationalism.
The court differentiated between free speech and hate speech, as hate speeches are those which intent to hurt anybody’s feeling or sentiment which can further incite violence leading to unrest and disturb the law and maintenance of the country.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
- The provision of equal protection and prohibition of discrimination based on religion have not been observed properly. Can an intentional insult of a renowned person from a community by a person from another community?
- In our Indian constitution, Article 19(1) guarantees freedom of speech, but too that with some restrictions. These restrictions were formulated to prohibit the misuse of freedom of speech, as the freedom should not be unlimited that it infringes the right of being protected against discrimination on the grounds of religion. But the practical implementations of these provisions need to be checked.
- Even negligent or careless remarks about a revered figure can constitute hate speech, endangering public safety. This shows deficiency in addressing such statements.
- No provision was made to define the incident of hate speech.
INFERENCE:
- The hearing and judgement of Amish Devgan vs. Union of India underlines the need of a balance between right of freedom of speech and preventing hate speech.
- The freedom of speech is not an absolute in nature, it comes with some restrictions. The regulation of this provision needs to be kept a close eye upon.
- The case highlights the need of clear legal distinction between acceptable or permissible speech and hate speech so that laws can be applied fairly.
- The case plays a very important role in reflecting the need to draw a line between in complex relation between freedom of speech and societal balance. It also showcases the level of caution that needs to be maintained while exercising the right to freedom of free speech.
Author
Anubhuti
Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University
New law college, Pune
[1] https://blog.ipleaders.in/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-2020-a-case-that-outraged-religious-grounds/
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179868451/
[3] https://theamikusqriae.com/amish-devgan-v-union-of-india-ors/