Indian Polity

Model Answer

Introduction

The protection of freedom of expression in India has evolved significantly, especially through the constitutional interpretations by the Supreme Court. Enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, this right has been progressively interpreted to reflect the changing dynamics of society and governance.

Early Restrictive Approach

1. Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras (1950): The early Supreme Court interpretation of freedom of speech was restrictive. In this case, the Court upheld a narrow view of free speech and allowed government restrictions, especially when public interest was at stake.
2. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950): Similar restrictive views were held, where the Court emphasized the necessity of restrictions in certain circumstances, thus curbing unfettered free speech.

Shift Towards Expansive Interpretation

1. Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962): A key moment in the Court’s interpretation, where it expanded the scope of freedom of speech to include the liberty of circulation and publication, laying the foundation for a broader interpretation.
2. Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1973): This case further expanded the understanding, particularly in terms of media freedom, reinforcing the idea that press freedom is essential for the functioning of a democracy.

Key Developments in the Protection of Free Expression

1. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): This landmark case established the basic structure doctrine, indirectly strengthening the protection of fundamental rights like freedom of expression.
2. Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1986): The Court firmly upheld the press’s freedom, recognizing its vital role in informing the public and acting as a check on government power.

Widening Scope for Political, Artistic, and Social Speech

1. R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): The Court upheld the right of politicians to express themselves freely, bolstering political speech.
2. KA Abbas v. Union of India (1970): The Court recognized artistic freedom, protecting filmmakers’ rights to create without excessive censorship.

New Challenges with Social Media

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, emphasizing the importance of protecting online free speech in the digital age.

Sedition Law and Dissent

1. Common Cause v. Union of India (2016): The Court issued guidelines to curb misuse of sedition laws, highlighting the importance of dissent in a democracy.

Conclusion

Through various judgments, the Supreme Court has broadened the scope of freedom of expression, ensuring its applicability in diverse areas like media, political speech, and digital expression. These interpretations reflect an evolving understanding of the right to free speech, balancing individual liberty with societal responsibility.

Model Answer

Introduction

The role of the judiciary in India has evolved significantly over time. Traditionally tasked with restricting government actions, the judiciary has increasingly played an active role in policy formulation. This shift raises important questions about its influence in shaping laws and public policy, often stepping in where the legislature has failed to act.

Judiciary’s Positive Contribution to Policy Formulation:

1. Addressing Legislative Inaction:
   • Fact: In cases where the legislature failed to pass crucial reforms, the judiciary intervened and directed necessary changes.
   • Example: In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court recognized the right to education as a fundamental right, which led to significant policy changes and the eventual enactment of the Right to Education (RTE) Act in 2009.
2. Protecting Fundamental Rights:
   • Fact: The judiciary has actively safeguarded the rights of marginalized communities when government actions were deemed discriminatory.
   • Example: In the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality, ensuring the protection of LGBTQ+ rights under the Constitution.
3. Promoting Evidence-Based Policymaking:
   • Fact: Judicial rulings have been instrumental in shaping evidence-based policies.
   • Example: In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court’s directives on controlling air pollution played a key role in framing environmental policies.
4. Enhancing Public Participation:
   • Fact: Judicial interventions through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have encouraged civic engagement and policy reform.
   • Example: PIL cases have led to significant public awareness and governmental accountability in areas like healthcare, education, and environmental protection.
5. Filling Regulatory Gaps:
   • Fact: The judiciary has stepped in to develop regulations when necessary.
   • Example: The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Forest Conservation Act case addressed gaps in forest preservation policies.

Critical View

1. Undermining Legislative Supremacy:
   • Fact: The judiciary’s intervention can undermine the authority of the elected legislature.
   • Example: In the case of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (2014), the Supreme Court struck down the law, asserting its control over judicial appointments, which many saw as judicial overreach.
2. Lack of Expertise:
   • Fact: The judiciary may lack the specific expertise needed to formulate complex policies, leading to potential missteps.
   • Example: The firecracker ban in Delhi (2018) aimed at controlling pollution, but was criticized for its impractical implementation without adequate consultation with experts.
3. Erosion of Accountability:
   • Fact: Heavy judicial intervention may shift accountability away from elected representatives.
   • Example: Judicial involvement in environmental issues, such as air pollution control, can divert attention from governmental responsibility and transparency.

Conclusion

The judiciary’s expanded role in policy formulation has both advantages and drawbacks. While it plays a critical role in addressing legislative gaps and protecting rights, its growing influence must be balanced carefully with the democratic principles of legislative supremacy and executive accountability. It is essential that the judiciary complements, rather than replaces, the legislative and executive branches in ensuring effective governance.