Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Essay

    Uploaded by

    Tatun
    Democratic governments have a responsibility to balance protecting civil liberties with maintaining law and order. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in democracies, but it is not absolute. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but also allows for reasonable restrictions for issues like national security, public order, and preventing harm to others. However, the concept of "reasonable restrictions" is vague and not clearly defined, giving governments broad power to limit speech. Clearer definitions of these restrictions are needed to avoid abuse of power and reduce disputes that burden the judiciary. Overall, restrictions may be necessary but the rights of people should be safeguarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Essay

    Uploaded by

    Tatun
    88 views3 pages
    Democratic governments have a responsibility to balance protecting civil liberties with maintaining law and order. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in democracies, but it is not absolute. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but also allows for reasonable restrictions for issues like national security, public order, and preventing harm to others. However, the concept of "reasonable restrictions" is vague and not clearly defined, giving governments broad power to limit speech. Clearer definitions of these restrictions are needed to avoid abuse of power and reduce disputes that burden the judiciary. Overall, restrictions may be necessary but the rights of people should be safeguarded.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Democratic governments have a responsibility to balance protecting civil liberties with maintaining law and order. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in democracies, but it is not absolute. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but also allows for reasonable restrictions for issues like national security, public order, and preventing harm to others. However, the concept of "reasonable restrictions" is vague and not clearly defined, giving governments broad power to limit speech. Clearer definitions of these restrictions are needed to avoid abuse of power and reduce disputes that burden the judiciary. Overall, restrictions may be necessary but the rights of people should be safeguarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    88 views3 pages

    Essay

    Uploaded by

    Tatun
    Democratic governments have a responsibility to balance protecting civil liberties with maintaining law and order. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in democracies, but it is not absolute. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but also allows for reasonable restrictions for issues like national security, public order, and preventing harm to others. However, the concept of "reasonable restrictions" is vague and not clearly defined, giving governments broad power to limit speech. Clearer definitions of these restrictions are needed to avoid abuse of power and reduce disputes that burden the judiciary. Overall, restrictions may be necessary but the rights of people should be safeguarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Democratic Privilege of People

    (Freedom of Speech & Expression)


    Vs.
    Government Prerogative of Suspension
    (Reasonableness of Reasonable Restrictions)

    Democracy is fundamentally known to be a rule of people,well said by American Statesman


    Abraham Lincoln, It is the rule of the people, for the people and by the people but how ironic it
    would be that people’s rule rights are snatched by some group of people representing the whole
    population. The utmost purpose of formation of a democratic government is to serve the people
    and the responsibility of a democratic government is far more higher than that of the other type
    of government.
    In modern times, this term has taken a different meaning the rule of democratic government is
    more likely seems to be a rule of a dictator where in the name of establishing law and order
    government tend to control the behaviour of a civil society by suspending their civil
    Liberties. In democracy people are sovereign and they agree to different democratic processes
    and rule of law, but rights of people are of utmost importance. Indeed, rule of law cannot be
    compromised with the rights of people but at the same time rights of government exercising its
    power to maintain law & order in society should not be in excess of what a reasonable person
    thinks to be enough or what constitution has granted to government if misused which
    would result in exploitation of rights of people. Freedom of Speech & Expression is the most
    an important part of a democracy, it is a first condition to liberty. In modern time it is widely
    accepted as an essence of liberal society and must be safeguarded all the time. Liberty to express
    opinions and ideas without fear of punishment plays a significant role in development of
    a society towards democracy. It is indispensable for the development of one’s individuality and
    for the success of parliamentary democracy.
    John Milton in one of his quotes says, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely
    according to conscience, above all liberties”, he argued that without human freedom there can be
    no progress in science, law or politics, which according to him required free discussion of
    opinion. He argued truth drives out of falsity, therefore, free expression of ideas, true or false
    should not be feared. The truth is not fixed or stable but evolves with time. He further
    emphasised that free discussion is necessary to prevent the deep slumber of decided opinion, the
    discussion would drive the onwards march of truth and by considering false views the basis of
    true views could be reaffirmed. The constitution of India guarantees various fundamental rights
    to its citizens. One such important right is under Art.19 which includes right to freedom of
    speech and expression, right to assemble peacefully and without arms, freedom to form
    association, right to move freely throughout the territory of India and various other types of
    freedom under such rights.
    Clause. (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution imposes certain restrictions on free speech
    under following; Security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
    decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, and sovereignty
    and integrity of India

    Right to free speech is not absolute. It does not mean freedom to hurt another’s reputation which
    is protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Although truth is considered a defence against
    defamation, the defence would help only if the statement were made for the public good and that
    is a question of fact to be assessed by the judiciary.
    Reiterating the above said fact that you are free to speak until and unless you are in a lawful
    circle. How much is too much is only defined to say that until and unless you are not out the
    circle of law you have freedom to speak but the question remains that no one hasn’t defined that
    lawful circle. No book of law states that this is the line if you cross this you will be
    punished and this non defining causes a lot of trouble when a case of dissent arises. Executive
    tends to apply dissent with sedition which is not good in law.
    I think there is a need to define that line so that dissent should not be considered sedition. Then
    comes this Reasonable Restriction concept, what I think these are vague terms with no definition
    and this in law creates troubles. For instance, this concept or doctrine gives the government a
    tool to suspend freedom indefinitely. Nothing has been defined in this case in any law book
    Certain general considerations have been laid down in amplifying the tests of reasonableness.
    Thus, in considering whether restrictions are reasonable it is relevant to consider whether the law
    imposing them is temporary or permanent. Again, when the State must take swift decisions in
    emergency situations of apprehended danger, restrictions may be considered reasonable which
    would not be considered otherwise reasonable. And it is necessary to inquire whether the
    impugned law provides reasonable safeguards as, for example, by conferring a right of appeal or
    review, or a right to have the matter judicially determined. A legislature cannot restrict the
    freedoms beyond Art 19 (2) to (6) .I came to this conclusions that restrictions are necessary
    though initially I thought that restriction on this right is fundamentally wrong but having read all
    these laws I am in support of restrictions imposed in national security and other all factors stated
    in law but some problems still remains unsolved are this concept of reasonable restriction which
    needs to be clearly defined which would result in less burden of cases on judiciary because the
    problem in law arises only through language which is not clearly defined,. As in Indian context
    the government derives its powers from the constitution of India and the constitution derives its
    powers from people, so rights of people should be taken care of by the judiciary who is the sole
    saver against the oppression of the government.

    You might also like