Thread by @barandbench

Courtroom Legends: Valedictory session by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on "Demystifying the Freedom of Speech and Expression"

SG Mehta speaking:

#LiveSession

SG: for the first time freedom of speech and expression was examined in a different light and included a negative right which was "Right to not speak"

SG: After this government took over there were some amendments brought in Information Technology Act on right to use internet. #SupremeCourt read Article 14, 19(1)(a) as followed in Maneka Gandhi judgment in Maneka Gandhi. Thus Section 66A was held to he violative of Constitution

SG: internet has a tremendous potential to generate a lot of public opinion. It is this which has a great effect on vulnerable minds. Dissemination of news and views can be carried out in seconds. Nobody can vouch for the authenticity. This is an anonymous medium

SG: jurists are still struggling on whether this right should be controlled so that mine and yours fundamental right as a citizen is not put to jeopardy. This is a worrying pattern. We have surpassed the age of printed newspapers or conventional broadcasters.

SG: we are in the digital area in which people come to conclusions, react and form an opinion on what is available in this medium. Hate message can be propagated having serious impact on public order

SG: there is not even a remote possibility that this medium can never be controlled or our freedom of speech and expression be untouched. This makes our responsibility more and realise what is width to move my fist where someone else's nose lies

SG: I am not a very good fan of western jurisprudence. #SupremeCourt has analysed the freedom in the Indian context on a normative plain. Curiously throughout the world there seems to be movement to label an opinion as hate speech.

SG: This shows our jurisprudence has to evolve to balance freedom of speech and expression with society's right to order. A lopsided law on hate speech will only benefit a few.

SG: Can reasonable restriction be dependent on level of tolerance of individuals or group of individuals. if we need to define and demarcate free and hate speech regulation has to be made by keeping in mind national security and cannot become tolerance specific.

SG: one will end up punishing the tolerant and rewarding the intolerant and this is what supreme court calls as manifestly arbitrary.

SG: Justice PN Bhagwati had said...."test in RC Cooper case relates to direct consequence or effect on fundamental right of the petitioner.. direct and inevitable right had been described as the real effect."

SG: we are going through turbulent times and humanity is struggling for existence. I wish everyone for giving me audience and good evening.

SG: we have amongst us those who rather than bringing Supreme Courts image as protector of human rights they bring disrepute to it. Best way is to ignore it. Only numerical minority group propagates otherwise. People have immense faith in #SupremeCourt

SG: we have not been able to balance individuals right to free speech and expression with society's right of free order. We will evolve something.

Question: How do you manage your time?

SG: if our Prime Minister works 16 or 18 hours a day we have nothing to complain. I know this personally. However I do manage time for family @narendramodi

#SolicitorGeneral

Question: CJI says what AG thinks govt thinks. What do you think of this remark?

SG: these remarks are taken out of context. I don't thini CJI meant what is portrayed in the media

Question: Can an offending action like cartoon etc not with purpose of disrupting public order then is it right to curtail freedom of speech?

SG: No it cannot be done so. One person may feel offended and one may not. Test is of intolerance or tolerance. Law in this is settled

Q: how can curbing seditious activity and protecting freedom of speech and expression is balanced?

SG: that fine balance is maintained by executive and always by the courts

Q: On media trials

SG: whatever we want to see media shows us that. Now guidelines are in place you cannot have media trials. There cannot be in a free democracy any curbs.

SG: a judge was asked to define obscenity. He said I know it when I see it. It is undesirable to define obscenity in a straight jacket formula. It's undesirable to do so.

SG: nobody is wise enough to give you words of wisdom. Just face the world and wisdom will come automatically

Session ends.

Event was held by Campus Law Centre, New Delhi

@clcdu