Freedom of Speech: Limits and Responsibilities

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made a significant observation regarding the right to free speech, stating that it does not extend to the use of expressions that impute criminality, moral depravity, and collective blame to an entire caste or social group. This ruling came in response to a plea seeking the quashing of a criminal case against an activist-lawyer who was booked by the police for his public comments about a murder case.

The Case Against the Activist-Lawyer

The accused lawyer, Rajat Kalsan, was booked for allegedly promoting enmity between different groups, intentionally insulting to provoke a breach of peace, and making statements conducive to public mischief. The criminal case against Kalsan was registered in July following a complaint alleging that, during a speech at a public meeting in Hisar, he referred to some villagers as ‘casteist goons’ for allegedly trying to falsely implicate a Scheduled Caste (SC) woman and others in a murder case.

The Court’s Observation

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj made the observation while rejecting the plea, stating that expressions such as ‘casteist goons’ carry the real and imminent risk of legitimising prejudice, inciting hostility, and disturbing public tranquillity. The Court said, “Freedom of speech cannot be stretched to shield expressions that promote or are likely to promote alienation, public disorder or violence or that challenge the unity and integrity of the nation. Unchecked divisive speech ultimately curtail the liberties of law-abiding citizens.”

The Incident That Led to the Case

It was alleged that Kalsan claimed that the deceased woman, belonging to a particular caste, had been murdered by her own family members over a property dispute in 2024. He further alleged that the police, at the instance of villagers, falsely implicated an SC woman and others in the case. The use of the term ‘casteist goons’ was seen as a provocative statement that could incite violence and disturb public peace.

Conclusion

The Court’s ruling highlights the importance of responsible speech and the need to balance the right to free speech with the need to maintain public order and harmony. While the right to free speech is an essential part of a democratic society, it is not absolute and does not extend to expressions that promote hatred, violence, or division. The ruling serves as a reminder that words have consequences and that individuals must be mindful of the impact of their speech on others and on society as a whole.