Right to question not defiance, every dissent not a threat: SC judge
A Supreme Court judge, speaking at a university convocation, said the right to question is not an act of defiance but "an essential expression of citizenship, liberty and constitutional responsibility" in a democracy.
He said universities must remain spaces where established positions can be examined and questioned, and where students are not threatened with punitive action for holding a different point of view.
He observed that constitutional democracy requires the State to listen to citizens, citizens to listen to one another, and institutions to remain accountable.
He warned that intolerance sets in when disagreement is no longer treated as a legitimate difference of opinion but as something to be silenced, rejected, or punished, and that a democracy's maturity is measured by how it responds to unpopular or inconvenient views.
Article 19(1)(a) — Freedom of Speech and Expression
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees to all citizens the freedom of speech and expression, which the Supreme Court has read expansively to include the right to dissent, criticise government policy, and propagate opinions through any medium. This right is not absolute; Article 19(2) permits the State to impose "reasonable restrictions" on eight specified grounds (sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, and friendly relations with foreign states).
Key Details
- Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): the Court held that freedom of the press/expression is foundational to democratic organisation.
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): upheld the sedition provision's constitutionality but confined it strictly to speech inciting violence or public disorder, holding that mere criticism of government is protected speech.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, reinforcing that restrictions on speech must meet the strict test of Article 19(2).
The judge's remarks that "the right to question is not defiance" restates the doctrinal core of Article 19(1)(a) jurisprudence — that dissent and criticism, short of incitement to violence or public disorder, are constitutionally protected and cannot be treated as a security or disciplinary threat.
Judicial Independence and Extra-Judicial Speech
Sitting judges occasionally use convocations, lectures, and seminars to comment on constitutional values without adjudicating a specific case — a practice grounded in the judiciary's role as guardian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts).
Key Details
- Judicial independence is itself part of the Constitution's basic structure, as affirmed in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and subsequent judgments on the collegium system.
- Extra-judicial speeches by judges are advisory/persuasive in nature and carry no binding precedent value, unlike a judgment delivered in a case.
- Higher judiciary commentary on dissent and free speech often shapes public discourse ahead of, or alongside, pending litigation on sedition (Section 152, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced Section 124A IPC) and other speech-restricting provisions.
The judge's convocation address is an instance of extra-judicial judicial commentary reinforcing constitutional values (federalism of institutions listening to citizens, accountability) without constituting a binding ruling — a distinction useful for both Prelims (nature of judicial pronouncements) and Mains (judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights).
- Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(2) lists the permissible grounds for reasonable restriction.
- Sedition law under Section 124A of the erstwhile IPC has been substantively narrowed by judicial interpretation since Kedar Nath Singh (1962) and is now recast under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) remains the leading precedent for testing vague/overbroad speech-restricting statutes against Article 19(1)(a).