Supreme Court Calls for Police Education on Freedom of Speech Amid WhatsApp Status Case
In a significant ruling on Thursday (March 7), the Supreme Court made a crucial observation regarding the necessity to educate law enforcement about the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, stressed the importance of enlightening the police force about democratic values enshrined in the Constitution, emphasizing the need for reasonable restraint on such freedoms.
This observation comes as part of a broader verdict in a case involving Professor Javed Ahmed Hajam, who faced charges under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code for his WhatsApp status criticizing the abrogation of Article 370. While the Bombay High Court had previously declined to quash an FIR against him, citing concerns of promoting communal disharmony, the Supreme Court took a divergent stance, recognizing citizens’ fundamental right to express dissent and criticism on matters of public importance.
Quashing the criminal case against the professor, the apex court highlighted that under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, every citizen has the right to offer criticism, including expressing dissatisfaction with governmental decisions. The court clarified that describing the day of abrogation as a ‘Black Day’ was a legitimate expression of protest and anguish, not an intent to promote disharmony.
The judges further emphasized that expressions of dissent should be evaluated based on the understanding of reasonable individuals who comprehend democratic values, rather than their impact on individuals with ‘weak minds’. Additionally, the bench reiterated that extending good wishes to other countries, as the professor did on Pakistan’s Independence Day, should not be misconstrued as promoting disharmony.
The ruling serves as a significant reaffirmation of the primacy of freedom of speech and expression in a democratic society, underscoring the importance of protecting such rights against undue restrictions.
Case Details: Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. | Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 2024
