Amid the controversy faced by the India’s Got Latent judges for their inconsiderate and crass choice of words about disabled individuals, the CURE SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) Foundation of India has filed a petition against five comedians, including Samay Raina.
Supreme Court judges Suryakant Sharma and Joymala Bagchi have stated that Article 21 (Right to Dignity) holds greater significance than Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression) of the Indian Constitution.
Although their (judges) statement on the issue was merely verbal, it has once again brought attention to the ongoing discourse on whether the right to dignity should take priority over the right to freedom of speech.
“The right to dignity also emanates from a right which someone else is claiming. Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) cannot overpower Article 21 (right to dignity). Article 21 must prevail if any competition between the two rights arises,” remarked Justice Suryakant and Justice Bagchi.
During the ongoing discussion, many judges have weighed in on whether making distasteful remarks should fall under the protection of the right to free speech. Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, representing the CURE SMA Foundation, contended that the Latent judges, including Samay Raina, who made mean, insensitive and derogatory comments about people with disabilities, do not deserve protection under Article 19(1)(a) that grants freedom of speech. She argued that their remarks should be placed on the same mantle as “hate speech.”
The bench emphasized that the matter requires attention and that regulatory measures must be considered regarding the right to freedom of speech and expression. They also expressed concern over how users are posting “anything and everything” on social media, suggesting that such activity needs to be restrained. Justice Suryakant agreed to discuss the idea of implementing regulatory measures, a proposal suggested by the Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani.
Justice Suryakant added, “There are many free advisers in the market. Ignoring them… the guidelines should be in conformity with constitutional principles, balancing freedom and determining where rights and duties begin. We will have an open debate on such guidelines. Let all stakeholders come forward and present their viewpoints.”
