Context : Right to Take Offence & Constitutional Framework:
- The Indian Constitution does not explicitly recognize a “right to take offence.”
- Restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) are narrowly defined (security of the state, public order, decency, morality, etc.).
- Offensive speech, unless falling within these categories, cannot be criminalized.
Relevance : GS 1(Society ) , GS 2(Social Justice)
- Balancing Free Speech & Restrictions:
- Free speech is expansive but must respect defined constitutional limits.
- Restrictions can only be imposed through enacted legislation, not executive actions.
- Laws should not be paternalistic; only speech posing imminent threats (e.g., incitement to violence) justifies curbs.
- Constitutional Morality vs. Majority Morality:
- Constitutional morality focuses on principles like equality and justice, preventing the tyranny of majority sentiments.
- Societal disapproval can be expressed through criticism or boycotts, not criminal prosecution.
- Filing multiple FIRs for the same speech incident is harassment and undermines fair trial rights.
- Profane vs. Obscene Speech:
- Profanity does not automatically equate to obscenity.
- Obscenity standards have evolved from the Hicklin test (1964) to the community standards test (2014).
- Evolving social norms make defining obscenity subjective and context-dependent.
- Regulation of Digital Content:
- Over-regulation risks homogenizing information, curbing dissent, and stifling diversity of opinion.
- Laws must be applied impartially; selective censorship undermines democratic fairness.
Key Takeaway:
A robust democracy thrives on diverse opinions and satire, even if uncomfortable. Offence should be met with dialogue, not criminalization. Balancing free speech with constitutional morality ensures both freedom and responsibility in public discourse.
