A panel discussion at the Government Law College on Friday saw legal experts and prominent figures debating the balance between free speech and the consequences of unregulated speech in the digital age. Among the panelists was retired Bombay High Court Justice Gautam Patel, who strongly defended free speech, arguing that attempts to curtail it, particularly by those in power, are unconstitutional and socially undesirable.
While the internet has democratised communication across class, creed, and race, it has also led to conflicts between free expression and political sensitivities. Recent incidents, including Abu Azmi’s comments on Aurangzeb that led to riots in Nagpur, Ranveer Allahbadia’s controversial humor that reached the Supreme Court, and comedian Kunal Kamra facing legal action for a satirical take on Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, were cited as examples of this tension.
Justice Patel challenged the idea of censorship, questioning who would have the authority to regulate speech. “The internet is not just a network of networks; it is an explosion of ideas, you can’t stop them,” he asserted. He criticised the trend of expanding restrictions on speech, warning that even some judges support curtailing free expression. “This is completely wrong. It is neither constitutionally permissible nor socially desirable.”
He emphasised that public figures should develop resilience to criticism. “If you are a public figure, you better have the skin of a rhinoceros and learn to deal with it.”
Author Ashwin Sanghi echoed Justice Patel’s expression, arguing that India has historically been a land of discussion and dissent, even to the extent of questioning gods. “We have always debated, ridiculed, and engaged in discourse,” he said.
Satirist Cyrus Broacha criticised the hypersensitivity of political figures, questioning why every comment against them leads to vandalism and outrage. “It’s just comedy! Why does every small joke cause such an overreaction?” he asked, pointing to the culture of excessive reverence toward politicians.
Advocate Aarti Raghavan, who represented Kamra in the Bombay High Court, highlighted the alarming concentration of power in the hands of a few tech giants. “Social media is not just entertainment, it is our primary mode of communication. A few companies control how we talk, think, and process information. This is a terrifying reality.”
Justice Patel condemned the growing trend of filing FIRs against comedians and critics, calling it state-sponsored intimidation. “The same words used by Kamra against Eknath Shinde have been said by Uddhav Thackeray and Ajit Pawar, yet no FIRs were filed against them. This is selective outrage.”
He called on the judiciary to take a firm stand against frivolous cases aimed at silencing dissent. “Courts must start quashing these FIRs consistently. Between the government and citizens, the courts stands in between.”
While speaking about reinforcing the fundamental nature of free speech, “These rights were not given to us; they were won through struggle, blood, and sacrifice. The restrictions on speech should be as narrow and specific as possible. But do not curtail my right to read, think, speak, see, or listen.”
