Content :
- Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
- Consultative regulation-making that should go further
Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is a sign of regression
Core Argument
- Indian judiciary is perceived to be shifting focus from protecting free speech to managing it.
- Courts increasingly prioritize societal sentiments and decorum alongside constitutional rights.
- Article 19(1)(a) rights are being interpreted with consideration of emotional and cultural contexts.
Relevance: GS 2 (Judiciary, Liberty)
Practice Question: “Judicial sensitivity to sentiments is leading to a quiet erosion of free speech in India.” Critically examine the role of the judiciary in upholding the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the context of recent trends and case laws. (250 words, 15 marks)
Cases Highlighted
- Criticism of PM post-Operation Sindoor: FIR upheld citing “emotions of the nation.”
- Kamal Haasan’s language remark: Advised to apologize for hurting sentiments; focus on social impact over legal thresholds.
- Podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia case: Court questioned use of “vulgar” language based on societal norms.
- Professor Ali Khan’s critique of military deployment: Examined for possible provocative intent in academic speech.
- Rahul Gandhi Army remark case: Relief rejected; emphasis on protecting institutional reputation.
Judicial Trends Observed
- Offence often equated with legal harm, broadening interpretation of restrictions.
- Courts at times act as arbiters of cultural and social norms.
- Apologies encouraged as a means of managing public sentiment.
- Limited intervention in quashing FIRs contributes to deterrent effects on speech.
Chilling Effect
- The “chilling effect” doctrine is infrequently applied.
- Ambiguity in laws like sedition and public order provisions remains.
- Creates an environment favoring cautious and non-controversial speech.
Principled Approach Suggested
- Speech restrictions should rely on clear legal criteria, not subjective sentiments.
- Apologies should be voluntary, not judicially mandated.
- Judiciary should focus on protecting free expression while balancing social interests.
Broader Implications
- Validation of outrage may empower repeated legal actions.
- Judicial approach influences public confidence in constitutional freedoms.
- Free speech remains a vital pillar for democratic discourse.
Conclusion
- Courts should uphold their constitutional role as protectors of free speech.
- Democracy thrives on robust dissent and debate, not only on harmony.
- Judicial sensitivity to sentiments requires careful balancing to avoid unintended constraints on liberty.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for educational and discussion purposes.
Consultative regulation-making that should go further
Context: RBI and SEBI recently issued frameworks to make regulation-making more transparent and consultative by publishing procedures, impact analyses, objectives, inviting public comments, and periodic reviews.
Positive shift: These frameworks mark a welcome move toward openness, public engagement, and self-review in regulatory processes.
Relevance : GS 2 (Governance and Constitution) and GS 3 (Economy and Financial Regulation).
Practice Mains Question:“Recent reforms by financial regulators like RBI and SEBI towards consultative regulation-making mark a positive step for transparency and accountability. However, these reforms need to be strengthened to ensure effective rule of law. Discuss the significance of consultative regulation-making, challenges faced, and suggest measures to improve regulatory processes in India.” (250 words, 15 marks)
Need for economic rationale:
- Current RBI and SEBI frameworks require impact analysis and stated objectives but do not explicitly mandate identification of market failures or economic justification.
- Effective regulation should clearly explain the economic problem addressed, expected benefits, alternatives considered, and monitoring mechanisms.
- International examples (US, EU, IFSCA) mandate detailed cost-benefit and problem identification to guide sound policy.
Accountability gaps:
- Historically, RBI and SEBI have limited public consultations (e.g., RBI at 2.4% of circulars, SEBI less than 50% of regulations).
- Transparency in how public feedback is considered remains weak; often summaries of comments are confidential.
- Annual reporting on consultations, responses, accepted/rejected suggestions, and their rationale would enhance accountability.
Periodic review importance:
- RBI and SEBI should define clear, frequent timelines for regulation reviews to ensure relevance and effectiveness.
- IFSCA mandates a three-year review cycle, setting a useful benchmark.
Challenges:
- Limited state capacity may hinder comprehensive implementation of impact assessments and consultative procedures.
- Piecemeal reforms may lack consistency and efficacy without a broader, uniform legal framework.
Recommendation:
- Consider a central legislation akin to the US Administrative Procedure Act for India to standardize regulatory processes across agencies, ensuring uniform transparency, consultation, impact analysis, and reviews.
- Such a framework exists in countries like UK and Canada as agency guidelines.
Conclusion:
- RBI and SEBI’s reforms are a good start but must be strengthened with clearer economic rationales, stronger accountability, regular reviews, and ideally, an institutionalized legal framework to uphold rule of law in regulation-making.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for educational and discussion purposes.
