Should Freedom Of Speech Be An Absolute Right?

“A person’s Freedom is ensured when he ensures freedom of others.”

This Statement has been uttered by a great tall esteeming figure “Nelson Mandela”, Gandhi of South Africa. By this very statement, he wants to convey the message that everyone is free to the extent that he does not infringe upon the freedom of others. Freedom is something that everyone holds as he is born free. Everyone has the right to exercise this freedom, whether it is freedom of speech, expression or movement or anything else. Issue of freedom of speech has been too much in limelight in the recent past. There has been too much of hue & cry about it being in absolute sense or limited. Recently a liberal Bangladeshi Blogger Avijit Roy had been killed by the Fundamentalist blogger. Most probable reason for his killing is that he openly criticized about the fundamentalists’ ideas. Wendy Doniger book “The Hindus: The Alternative History” had to be pulled out of the market due to protests raised by some right-wing forces in the country. Not going in much past, some radical elements attacked the Charlie hebdo office. Charlie hebdo is a satirical magazine which had been famous for their liberal satires about religious beliefs and traditions. As evident by these examples, this issue is being debated across the world presently. It needs some serious thought.

“Everyone is born free but still bound by chains”.

This statement is true in whatever way we interpret it. If an individual wants to live in a society, he would have to have some restraints to follow the norms, notions of that very society. Same is the case with Indian society. From the very past in Indian families, Children had the freedom of speech but with certain limitations. They had to follow certain norms like respecting elders, using proper language, not creating dissent in the family etc. Indian Constitution provides the Fundamental Right of freedom of Speech. Nonetheless Our Constitution has also provided certain limitation to freedom of speech i.e. maintaining decency, public order etc. Many Constitutions around the world provide this right like USA, Britain, and France etc. Difference is that to what extent this right could be exercised? This difference varies from country to country depending upon their political scenario and other issues.

By exercising right of freedom of speech in absolute sense, a person could express his opinion in true sense. An individual’s creativity could be displayed; ideas could be generated without any fear. Learning could happen in an open way. Discussions and deliberations could take place freely on all types of issues. Strong voice could be raised against the political masters and their wrong doings. A progressive society could be built up where everyone is free to express.

We could not confidently say that providing right to freedom of speech in absolute sense would necessary lead to a progressive nation and society. Speech is not just associated with speaker or the one who is expressing. It is also associated with the listener or the one who judges the content of that speech. Everyone has his own way of interpreting the things. A person should be mature enough to understand whether the expression of speech was in good faith or having some malicious intentions. Taking the case of India, which is a developing country in a true sense, literacy rate is seventy percent and progressing slowly. So it is a high probability that a person who is illiterate could be moved by malicious speech content. India is that unique nation in the world community which is on extreme edge of a razor in many scenarios. It is multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic nation. Holding the people of India together requires some special efforts. These efforts have been taken in a brilliant manner by national personalities like Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, and Jawaharlal Lal Nehru etc. By the efforts of these people, a feeling of Nationalism has been generated in India and is well articulated in Our Constitution. Our Constitution provides has provided best of the ideals like equality, liberty, fraternity, Secularism etc. Any action or expression of speech which harms these principles should be judged with caution. There are infinite examples of misuse of freedom of speech to gain some political or cultural mileage. If a person is provided a free license to speak anything, it would lead to chaos, hate campaign derogatory remarks etc. It could defame a personality in unnecessary provocative manner. To the extent it could be a threat to a nation’s secular fabric and could lead to its disintegration. Fringe elements of the society like fundamentalist, separatists etc. could use this right for their personal, political and religious ambitions.

In the case of Charlie hebdo, act of terrorism is condemned to the full extent. There is also alternative dimension associated with it. From the past four to five years, Charlie Hebdo magazine was unnecessarily provoking Islamists by putting up Prophet’s image in a derogatory satirical way. Satire is good humour but it has to be with a right and positive intent. It should not be put up to provoke any community or religion. There is a serious lacuna to the human’s nature that When anyone is provided with excessive right, he tends to misuse it in all probability. He tends to forget his responsibility associated with the right.

As we know “Every Right comes with a responsibility” .This responsibility should be bearing in mind while exercising the right. The responsibility could be of upholding certain values, respecting others rights, maintaining decency etc. So it becomes imperative that every citizen should exercise his right to freedom of speech with responsibility. It is also necessary to have certain exceptions to this right in legal terms till the time India’s literacy level reaches hundred percent. After this maximum level is reached it should be left to the people to decide whether the speech was in good or bad faith.

Conflict Of Power Between Executive and Legislature

Indian State is made up of three organs i.e. Legislature,Executive and Judiciary.Primarily there functions are policy formulation,policy implementation and policy adjudication respectively.All the three organs of the government work within their spheres under normal circumstances.Although an effective coordination and cooperation has to be maintained between these three organs for the well functioning of the government and upholding the democratic values.Working within their own boundaries help in protecting the autonomy and integrity of the different organs of the government.This feature has been implicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution.It owes it origin to the theory of “Separation of Powers” propounded by French Philosopher Montesquieu.At the same time “Doctrine of Checks and Balance” has also been incorporated in the Indian Constitution to keep a check on the misuse of the power given to different organs of Government.

In India,People of the country are Sovereign.They exercise their supreme power by electing the legislators from their respective constituencies.In this way these legislators are the representatives of the people in the Parliament or legislative Assemblies.Their function is to raise issues related to the people and provide solutions for them by formulating laws,regulations and rules etc.Once the policy has been formulated,Bureaucracy is the body which implements these policies.It is the prerogative of the executive how to implement and monitor the scheme.Issues related to functioning such degree of implementation could be raised in the legislature but could not be directly monitored by the legislators as this is clear clash of powers between Executive and Legislature.

Recently,Saansad Adarsh Gram Yojana has been launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.In this Scheme each Member of Parliament will take the responsibility of developing physical and institutional infrastructure in three villages by 2019,Out of which one has to be achieved within 2016.Thereafter, five such Adarsh Grams (one per year) will be selected and developed by 2024.It envisages integrated development of the selected village across multiple areas such as agriculture,health, education, sanitation, environment, livelihoods etc.The district Collector will be the nodal officer for implementing the SAGY.He will conduct a monthly review meeting with representatives of the participating Line Departments.The Members of Parliament concerned will chair the review meetings.

Similar is the MPLADS(MP-local Area Development) and MLA-LADS Scheme,Five Crore Rupees and around Four crore rupees(varies with state to state) is with the MP Fund and MLA Fund respectively to spend in their respective constituencies for the developmental Work.What Work to be done,where is to be done,how it is to be done is the sole discretion of the legislator.

These type of Schemes have very serious flaw within themselves.Bureaucrats are the selected authorities by the government for the implementation,given their vast experience in the ground work,but their powers are being overridden by sharing or out-rightly taken by legislators by way of monitoring and reviewing & Chairing the meetings by them.Although legislators represent the people of constituencies but there is high likely possibility of Unfair implementation by them.As they are being elected by the people,they would like to work or provide advantage to people to gain maximum political benefits.Clearly this is not in the larger public interest.At the same time,Bureaucracy is Politically neutral,it works in the best interest of the people regarding implementation.MP-LAD Scheme is the breeding ground of Corruption at the local level.Funds are being misused or not being used at all.It leads to Politician-Business Nexus in awarding of contracts etc.

After all tax-payers money is being drained which could have been judiciously used for the welfare of the people.In India,Policy formulation is not the problem but its poor Implementation is the problem.Their is a serious need for the ratification of this problem.As the 2nd ARC(Adminstrative Reforms Commission,2005) has recommended of total scrapping of MP-LAD type Schemes and recently too debate is going on.But this is not the only Solution to the problem.Bringing out minor Changes to it would lead to better results.One Solution to this could be:Funds which come under the MPs/MLAs should be transferred to District Collector and the sole discretion for withdrawal from it should be that of him.Constituency Level Advisory Committee consisting of MP/MLA and some active civil Society members should be formed for advising the District Collector regarding the usage of Funds,but the advise tendered should not be binding on him.This will not only provide inputs for proper use of funds and at the same time,give the opportunity to DC to implement fairly without any political Bias and prejudice.Discussion & deliberation of the Scheme could always be done in the legislation which will lead to pointing out good and bad Implementation and will give the space to government for further modifications.