The Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to free speech is not absolute, denying anticipatory bail to a 24-year-old Bengaluru resident. This decision underscores the judiciary's stance on balancing individual liberties with societal interests and the potential for misuse of free speech.
The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan has emphasized that while personal liberty is a crucial aspect, it's not unfettered. The court's decision aligns with previous observations that "over-solicitous homage" to an accused person's liberty can sometimes undermine public justice. The Supreme Court has stated that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the accused is alleged to be involved in corruption.
In a similar vein, a recent Supreme Court bail order raised concerns about free speech in another case, where the court granted bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad but imposed restrictions curtailing his freedom of speech and civil liberties. The Court demanded passport surrender and prohibition on writing, which undermines the accused's right to free speech and movement. Critics argue that the ruling may serve as a precedent for authorities to clamp down on dissent, potentially leading to more restrictions on platforms that foster open dialogue. The judiciary's role in interpreting and applying the law is paramount.
The Supreme Court has also made it clear that the denial of liberty to an accused person is warranted to ensure a corruption-free society. The Court has observed that corruption in high places is a significant menace that can lead to economic unrest. It is essential to balance the cause of the accused with the cause of public justice. The court also noted that anticipatory bail could be granted only if the court found prima facie that the applicant had been falsely implicated or that the allegations were politically motivated or frivolous.
The judiciary is increasingly wary of the misuse of investigative mechanisms and the potential for the state to exert control through the courts. The Supreme Court has cautioned against the use of legal procedures to conceal rights violations and has emphasized the importance of upholding civil liberties and protecting dissent. The court's approach to free speech has become increasingly inconsistent, with restrictions appearing to be guided more by ideological conformity than legal principles. The Supreme Court has also observed that speech must now seem patriotic to be protected which contradicts the very idea of free expression under the Constitution.
These observations align with the understanding that the right to free speech, while fundamental, is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when it comes to maintaining social order, preventing incitement to violence, or safeguarding the integrity of the nation. The Supreme Court continues to grapple with the complexities of balancing individual rights and societal interests, with these recent cases highlighting the ongoing debate surrounding the limits of free speech and the conditions under which anticipatory bail can be granted.
