'Political Parties Should Control...': Justice Nagarathna's Dissenting View on Additional Curbs on Lawmakers

The Supreme Court delivered a 4:1 judgment on whether restrictions can be imposed on a public functionaries’ right to freedom of speech and expression.

In it’s judgment, the Court said no additional restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of speech of public functionaries, ministers, MPs and MLAs under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

While four of the five-judge constitution bench read the majority verdict, Justice Nagarathna wrote a separate judgement and gave dissent views on some of the issues.

A Look At Justice Nagarathna’s Dissenting Opinion

In a statement, Justice Nagarathna said: “For a country like us, freedom of speech and expression is a much-needed right so that citizens are well informed and educated on governance.”

“Public functionaries and celebrities having regard to their reach and impact they have on public have to be more responsible and be more restraint on speech since it impacts the citizens at large,” she said in a separate judgement..

The justice further added hate speech in a sense strikes at the foundational values by making the society unequal and also attacks citizens from diverse backgrounds, especially in a country like ours that is Bharat.

She further added: “It shall be the duty of every Indian to uphold the dignity of every individual irrespective of religion, caste etc. and also uphold the dignity of women.”

She said that it is for Parliament in its wisdom to enact a law to restrain public functionaries from making disparaging remarks against fellow citizens keeping in mind 19(1)(a) and 19(2).

Nagarathna also mentioned political parties should control the speeches made by their ministers, which can be done by forming a code of conduct.

Any citizen, who feels attacked by such speeches or hate speech by public functionaries can approach the court for civil remedies, said Justice Nagarathna.

Justice Nagarathna’s comments come a day after she gave dissenting opinion while delivering the verdict in connection to the PIL filed against the decision of demonetisation.