Hate speech strikes at values of equality, liberty & fraternity: Justice Nagarathna

Justice B V Nagarathna on Tuesday said that hate speech strikes at the foundational values of equality, liberty and fraternity and fundamental duties could be used to check disparaging speeches and promote harmony among citizens.

She stressed the need for enacting a law to restrain people from making such remarks against others and seek appropriate remedy for the aggrieved persons. The judge also said political parties must bring in a code of conduct to control the speech of their members.

Dealing with constitutional questions related to disparaging or vitriolic remarks made by lawmakers, she said public functionaries and other persons of influence and celebrities, having regard to their reach, real or apparent authority and the impact they wield on the public or on a certain section thereof, owe a duty to the citizenry at large to be more responsible and restrained in their speech.

“They are required to understand and measure their words, having regard to the likely consequences thereof on public sentiment and behaviour, and also be aware of the example they are setting for fellow citizens to follow,” she said.

In her judgement, she ruled a statement made by a minister if traceable to any affairs of the state or for protecting the government, can be attributed vicariously to the government by invoking the principle of collective responsibility, so long as it represents the view of the government also.

However, “If such a statement is not consistent with the view of the government, then it is attributable to the minister personally,” she added.

In her separate decision, the judge said a proper legal framework is necessary to define the acts or omissions which would amount to constitutional tort and the manner in which the same would be redressed or remedied on the basis of judicial precedent.

She, however, emphasised that it is not prudent to treat all cases where a statement made by a public functionary resulting in harm or loss to a person/citizen, as a constitutional tort.

It is for the Parliament in its wisdom to enact legislation or code to restrain, citizens in general and public functionaries, in particular, from making disparaging or vitriolic remarks against fellow citizens, having regard to the strict parameters of Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions) and bearing in mind the freedom under Article 19(1) (a) (of speech and expression) of the Constitution.

She said she was not inclined to issue any guidelines in this regard.