IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

Article 2: Stifling ideas

Why in news: The Uttar Pradesh government ordered an FIR against a film’s makers over its title, reviving debate on free speechcriminalisation of expression, and the constitutional limits of executive power in regulating art.

 

Key Details

  • Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath ordered filing of an FIR against the makers of a film over its title Ghooskhor Pandat.
  • The title was alleged to hurt religious or caste sentiments and disturb social harmony.
  • The producer withdrew promotional material following the threat of criminal action.
  • A matter of artistic expression was quickly turned into a law-and-order issue.
  • Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech, even when it is offensive or unpopular.
  • Restrictions under Article 19(2) must be specific, proportionate, and justified.
  • Courts distinguish offensive speech from speech inciting violence or disorder.
  • Using criminal law to curb expression creates a chilling effect on art and debate.
  • Past instances show a pattern of executive restrictions on films and documentaries.
  • The state is expected to ensure public order without suppressing free expression.

 

Trigger for Controversy

  • Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath directed filing an FIR against the makers of a film over its title Ghooskhor Pandat.
  • He alleged the title disrupts social harmony and hurts religious or caste sentiments.
  • The producer removed promotional material, showing how quickly criminal process compelled compliance.

 

From Expression to Policing

  • What began as a speech dispute was swiftly converted into a law-and-order issue.
  • Executive threat of criminal law, even before judicial scrutiny, signalled intolerance of dissenting expression.
  • The FIR acted as a coercive warning, not a reasoned legal response.

 

Constitutional Protection of Speech

  • Article 19(1)(a) protects speech precisely because it may be unwelcome or offensive to powerful groups.
  • Article 19(2) permits restrictions only on specific grounds and requires proportionality.
  • Courts have clearly distinguished offensive speech from speech inciting violence or disorder.

 

Pattern of State Restrictions on Art

  • Visual arts have increasingly faced executive censorship.
  • Examples include bans or removals of The Kerala Story (2023), India: The Modi QuestionKaum De HeereIndia’s DaughterPadmaavat, and recent documentaries in 2024.
  • Many actions were taken without prior judicial findings.

 

Problems with ‘Hurt Sentiments’ Standard

  • In a diverse society, claims of being hurt are subjective and limitless.
  • Sentiments alone are an unreliable basis for criminal prosecution.

 

Chilling Effect on Free Expression

  • When creators self-censor to avoid trouble, public access to art is lost.
  • Courts lose opportunities to clarify legal standards, and society loses democratic responses like debate, satire, or boycott.
  • Over time, the marketplace of ideas weakens.

 

Proper Constitutional Approach

  • The state bears the burden to examine speech carefully and specifically.
  • If unlawfulness is alleged, the remedy lies in judicial review, not executive fiat.
  • Authorities must adopt the least restrictive measure, with recorded reasons.

 

Role of the State

  • It is the Chief Minister’s duty to maintain public order while protecting expression.
  • Curtailing speech to preserve order undermines the constitutional balance between authority and liberty.

 

Conclusion

The episode highlights a growing tendency to criminalise dissenting expression, undermining Article 19(1)(a)protections. By bypassing judicial scrutiny and invoking executive coercion, the state risks creating a chilling effect on art and debate. Upholding constitutional proportionality and relying on courts rather than policing are essential to balance public order with freedom of expression.

 

EXPECTED DQUESTION FOR PRELIMS:

Which of the following statements are correct in respect of Article 19 of the Constitution of India?

  1. Article 19 guarantees six fundamental freedoms to all citizens of India.
  2. Reasonable restrictions on these freedoms can be imposed by the State.
  3. Foreign nationals are also entitled to the freedoms under Article 19.

Select the answer using the code given below:

  1. 1 and 2 only
  2. 2 and 3 only
  3. 1 and 3 only
  4. 1, 2 and 3

Answer: a