Post-independence judicial rulings on the right to freedom of speech and expression have produced two contradictory lines of precedents on the restriction of “public order” under Article 19(2). The first is a “tendency-driven test” which reads public disorder as synonymous with “undermining the security of the state” and therefore sedition, while the second is a “consequence-driven test,” which separates sedition from public disorder, based on the temporal dimensions of proximity and proportionality. The underlying question at stake in either case, however, is that of determining the exercisable limits of an average Indian’s rationality within the public sphere.
The abolition of the appellate tribunal for film certification has brought into sharper focus the politics of film censorship by the state, which shows continuity in its implications from pre- to post-independence India.
The law punishing contempt of court leaves ample room for interpretation at the discretion of judges. Such discretion has the potential to be used to curb criticism of the judiciary.
India's Constitution has been amended over a hundred times since its inception in 1950. The landmark amendments are discussed with special emphasis on the first amendment, which altered the way the freedom of speech and expression was originally understood by the framers of the Constitution.
Habib Tanvir, who turned 80 on September 1, is a citizen of the world, borrowing, reading, soaking up influences indiscriminately; but through a long, hard, creative struggle, he has made Chhattisgarh the prism that refracts his creative expression. He is a Midas turned upside-down: whatever he touches loses its sheen, it becomes rough and turns to Chhattisgarhi.
Habib Tanvir and his band of rural actors have been under vicious attack from the Sangh parivar for the last fortnight or so. The main thrust of the two plays which have been attacked is social amity and harmony. Habib Tanvir has vowed to carry on with the performance of the plays. For any artist this would be a remarkable act of courage. For a man of 80, it is nothing less than heroic.
The Narmada Bachao Andolan contempt of court case, involving advocate Prashant Bhushan, Medha Patkar and Arundhati Roy, is analysed here from three perspectives: the frivolous nature of the complaint; the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of speech as against the power to punish for contempt of court; and the need for restraint on the part of social activists in their criticism of the judiciary.
