In Focus by The Hindu

The Hindu

A podcast from The Hindu that delves deep into current developments with subject experts, and brings in context, history, perspective and analysis.

  1. -1 J

    In Focus-Parley | Has the Supreme Court been effective in curbing hate speech?

    Last month, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition seeking criminal prosecution of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma over divisive and communal speeches, as well as a now-deleted social media post that depicted him firing a gun towards an animated image of two Muslim men. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked that whenever elections approach, the court tends to become a political battleground, and consequently directed the petitioners to approach the Guwahati High Court instead. Earlier in January, another Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath indicated that hate speech matters long pending before the court since 2021 would be closed. These were cases in which the court had earlier directed police authorities to register suo motu FIRs in instances of hate speech. The bench, however, clarified that the parties remained free to pursue other legal remedies, including approaching the High Courts or seeking appropriate police action. We discuss whether there has been a discernible shift in the Supreme Court’s approach towards curbing instances of hate speech, and whether legislative reforms may be required to deal with such communal rhetoric more effectively. Guests: Shahrukh Alam, advocate practicing before the Supreme Court, and Haris Beeran, advocate and Rajya Sabha MP. I welcome you both to the episode. Host: Aaratrika Bhaumik Edited by Jude Francis Weston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    1 h
  2. 26 FÉVR.

    ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ case: Can Supreme Court’s observations help reverse the declining protection for free speech in India?

    Recently, the producers of a Netflix movie titled ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ were taken to court. A PIL had been filed in the Supreme Court, seeking a ban on the movie. The PIL had been filed by a man claiming to be the National Organisation Secretary of the Brahman Samaj of India. His petition argued that the movie portrayed the Brahmin community in a negative light, by “equating” bribe-taking with the title ‘Pandat’. It said it would provoke disharmony, and a law and order problem. The film’s producers offered to relinquish the title, and release the movie under a different name. So, the case was closed. However, the associate judge on the Bench handling the case, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, has authored a separate opinion, where he has sought to restate first principles, dwelling on the themes of fraternity and free speech. On the one hand, the opinion states that it is “constitutionally impermissible” for state or non-state actors to “vilify or denigrate any community”. Many have expressed concerns that this could be used to impose further restrictions on free speech and artistic expression. But the judge has also observed that the effects of words must be judged from the standards of ordinary men of common sense and prudence, and not “on the basis of standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity, or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position”. Free speech is the most critical element of a democracy, and there seems to be enough here for those who want to spin the opinion as pro-free speech or as anti-free speech. What is the broader context of this commentary, and what are its legal implications? Guest: Supreme Court advocate Deepak Joshi Host: G Sampath Producer and editor: Jude Weston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    32 min

À propos

A podcast from The Hindu that delves deep into current developments with subject experts, and brings in context, history, perspective and analysis.

Vous aimeriez peut‑être aussi