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.