When we forget the true nature of opposition, criticism and disagreement, our expression turns into hatred and hatred. Currently, the voice of comment on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and national view organizations and activists is seen as such that is indefinite. The Supreme Court has somewhere during the hearing of cases of such indecent expression, which we need to consider seriously. No one can deny that freedom of expression is the backbone of our democratic system. It would not be appropriate to impose any kind of external restriction on this. But if similarly the indefinite written, rhetoric and cartooning continue, then some rational arrangements will have to be made to prevent disharmony and communal tension in the society. In this era of social media, no one can be given freedom of independent and unlimited expression. Citizens should also understand that there is a dignity of freedom of expression, it is not in the interest of anyone. It would be appropriate that civil society should seriously contemplate in this direction. The Supreme Court has justified that “misuse of freedom of expression can give rise to hatred and disintegration in society. So citizens should speak responsibly, keep restraint and respect the feelings of others”.
The great men here have also said that the behavior we require for ourselves, we should do the same behavior with the front. In the Supreme Court, the case of Vajahat Khan, which came before the bench of Justice BV Nagratna and Justice KV Vishwanathan, is such that the Hindu is making objectionable posts on the goddess but has filed a complaint against those who made objectionable posts about Islam. When someone overturned and lodged an FIR against him for insulting Hinduism, he has reached the court. Remember that social media influencer Sharmishtha Panouli made an objectionable remarks by coming into emotion at the time of Operation Sindoor. However, when he realized his mistake, he also apologized unconditionally and removed his video. But despite this, Vajahat Khan lodged an FIR against him. However, while doing this, Vajahat Khan did not look into his Gireban and saw what he was doing? When you do not like to hear any objectionable comment on your faith, then who has given you the right to make indecent comments on the gods and goddesses of others? It is good that a case has also been registered against him for making objectionable comments on Hindu deities to show the mirror to Vajahat Khan. Now they will understand the value of freedom of expression. A bench of Justice Biwi Nagratna and Justice KV Vishwanathan has said that “Why do people do not find Hate speech strange and wrong. Such content should be controlled. Also people should avoid sharing and likeing such hated content”.
Also read this: Supreme Court made strict remarks on political parties- “Promoting regionalism is as dangerous as communalism”
Similarly, a bench of Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Arvind Kumar has made strict remarks expressing concern about the highly objectionable cartoon of Cartoonist Hemant Malviya of Indore. The court has questioned the mentality of the cartoonist. Regarding this objectionable cartoon made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Supreme Court said that “Nowadays cartoonists and standup comedians are misusing freedom of expression. Do these people not think before making and speaking?” The court also clarified that “such disgusting satirical paintings cannot be protected in the name of freedom of expression. There is no maturity in Hemant Malaviya’s cartoon. It is really inflammatory”. Remember that Madhya Pradesh High Court has also reprimanded in this cartoonist case. When the High Court rejected the bail plea of the cartoonist, it approached the Supreme Court but there is no relief on his act here. There is also no artistic expression in the cartoon of Hemant Malaviya. These types of people also defame art to remove their ideological and political khunas, which are strong medium of expression. The funny fact is that his lawyer, who is defending Hemant Malaviya, also believes that “yes, this is a substandard cartoon. But is it a crime? No, it cannot be a crime. It can be objectionable but not a crime”. Now whether it is a crime or not, the court will decide, but Malaviya’s lawyer is at least accept that the cartoon is cheap. The allegations are that his cartoon not only insults the Prime Minister and a national organization but also provokes communalism. Social activist Vinay Joshi, who filed a complaint with Hemant Malaviya, has alleged that “Malaviya hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus by uploading objectionable materials on social media and spoiled communal harmony”. The FIR lodged on his behalf mentions several ‘objectionable’ posts, including allegedly inappropriate comments on Lord Shiva, as well as cartoons, videos, photos and comments about Modi, RSS workers and others. It is clear from this that Hemant Malaviya did not make objectionable cartoon for the first time, but this is his regular practice. According to the court, it is very important to prevent such tendencies.
However, on this advice of the Supreme Court, citizen society should not only contemplate, but should also follow it-“Citizens should understand the value of their speaking and freedom of expression and also follow self-control and restraint”. The Supreme Court has also said that increasing divisive tendencies on social media should be banned. The court has asked the central and state governments to stop the speeches that spread hatred. However, the court denied any kind of censorship. That is, freedom of expression of citizens should not be interrupted. For this, the court has also sought suggestions from lawyers and governments. However, this path is very difficult that the government should not impose any kind of restriction and in the name of freedom of expression, it should also curb the hatred thinking. If any way is seen in this direction, then it is a conscious citizen society. Society will have to come forward to stop the misuse of freedom of expression. When the disaster will be discouraged rather than encouraging those who make hatred speeches, then it will be controlled to a great extent. Here the patience of national thought workers will have to be appreciated that they keep moving forward ignoring the hatred. While there is indecent rhetoric towards other thoughts or sects, there is an immediate fierce response. Perhaps this is why everyone has considered Hindu religion, Hindu organization and Hindu society as a punching bag. It must be curbed. However, this request of the Supreme Court should be followed by all on a large scale, in which the court said that “people should take responsibility with themselves and be restrained in their words”.
– लोकेन्द्र सिंह
Assistant Professor, Makhanlal Chaturvedi National Journalism and Communication University, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)