The Hindu Editorial Analysis
9 June 2025
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
(Source – The Hindu, National Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS 2: Polity – Fundamental Rights (Article 19) | Judiciary – Role and Accountability | GS 4: Ethics in Public Life – Tolerance, Liberty, and Justice
Context
- Recent judicial responses to expressions that allegedly “hurt sentiments” are raising concerns about the erosion of Article 19(1)(a)—the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.
- From social media posts to satirical remarks and academic critiques, the judiciary’s increased deference to public sentiments signals a regressive trend in democratic governance.
Introduction
Courts are guardians of liberty—not arbiters of emotions.
India’s democracy, built on the bedrock of free speech, now faces a paradox: expression is policed not by legality, but by sensitivity. When courts demand apologies or criminalize criticism in the name of “offense,” they may unknowingly weaponize public sentiment as censorship.
Case Examples: Shrinking Free Speech Space
1. FIR against a 24-year-old criticising PM Modi
- After India’s 2025 military action in Pakistan, a citizen’s post was charged with disrupting public order.
- The Allahabad HC held that ‘emotions cannot be permitted to override constitutional protections’—a rare upholding of liberty.
2. Kamal Haasan’s remark on Godse
- Court didn’t assess legal incitement or defamation but advised against hurting the “sentiments of Tamils.”
3. Karnataka HC and Prof. Gurinder Bhalla’s remarks
- Criticism of Hindu deities in an academic setting led to criminal prosecution—highlighting misuse of hurt sentiments as a legal tool.
Key Concerns and Criticisms
1. Misreading Article 19(2)
- Restrictions like public order, defamation, incitement to offense are specific and narrow.
- Courts now expand it to include “offense” and “discomfort,” diluting constitutional protections.
2. The Chilling Effect Doctrine
- Fear of arrest, prolonged trials, or media trials discourages expression—even without conviction.
- Remorse and apology are often demanded without legal guilt, reinforcing majoritarian moralism.
3. Overreach in Granting Protection
- Courts increasingly issue gag orders or protection from arrest based not on legality but on perceived offense.
- This crowds out debate, satire, and academic freedom.
The Real Democratic Test
- Free speech includes the right to offend, not just flatter.
- Courts must protect speech that is unpopular, not just agreeable.
- As Ambedkar said, “the freedom of mind is the real freedom.”
Ethical and Democratic Implications
- Sentiment cannot replace constitutional morality.
- The judiciary must balance freedom and civility, not promote harmony at the cost of truth.
- The public must be trusted with tolerance, not silenced for fear of disharmony.
Conclusion
Liberty dies not with censorship, but with fear.
Judges must interpret the Constitution as a bulwark of individual dignity, not a mirror of popular outrage.
A mature democracy allows disagreement—sometimes loud, sharp, or even satirical—but never suppressive.
The Republic must remember that justice lies in upholding speech, not managing sentiment.