Does the right to commit a crime?

Does speech have the right to commit crime in any form of speech?

Gautam patel: No such right exists. Proper restrictions on free speech under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution do not recognize aggressive speech as a separate category. Instead, the restrictions are narrowly defined and include the security, public orders, decency, morality and other specific basis of the state. Therefore, the notion of the right to commit crimes beyond the scope of constitutionally permissible boundaries. While the language used in the show is highly objectionable and inaccessible, it is not necessarily the amount for violation of decency or morality under Article 19 (2).

Dushyant Dave: The right to free speech is always subject to some exceptions, including decency and morality. However, these standard vary in courts and develop over time. While I agree that the language used in the show was highly inappropriate, I have serious reservation as to whether it fulfills the legal threshold to constitute a criminal offense. In fact, such a language is widely used in everyday discourse and has become common in society. Thus, the resentment around it seems wrong.

Should the laws be patriarchal, or should speech only restrict speech when it creates an imminent risk of public disorder?

Dushyant Dave: I believe that speech should remain uninterested, except when it is a traitor and provokes violence. The Constitution Legislative Assembly debate Article 19 (2) -19 (6) reveals strong opposition to the restrictions imposed on free speech, arguing that the government should not have the power to reduce expression. However, Dr. Bribedkar said that in the large interest of the nation, some restrictions were necessary until they remained narrowly defined. However, the irony is that politicians are regularly engaged in abusive language, yet constitutional officials fail to take any action. Given this, I will give citizens more latitudes to express myself than such condemnable conduct from my political leaders.

Gautam Patel: Freedom of speech under Article 19 (1) (A) can only be restricted by clearly determined limits in Article 19 (2). While the right of free speech is the expander, the ban on it is narrowly defined. Therefore, the state cannot ban beyond these constitutional boundaries. Even more importantly, speech cannot be discontinued through executive action – such restrictions should be implemented only through duly enacted laws.

Is constitutional morality a significant protection against moral beliefs of majority?

Dushyant Dave: Constitutional morality enhances the spirit of the Constitution by strengthening values ​​like social justice and equality. However, restrictions on free speech are controlled by law law. Any evaluation of speech forms a crime, which should be limited to these narrowly defined legal parameters rather than transferring the moral emotions of the public.

He said, the society has every right to condemn the comments made on the show. It can express dissatisfaction through criticism or boycott. However, criminal restrictions are never solutions. In addition, the increasing trend of filing several FIRs for the same offense forms harassment. It not only prejudice the accused, but also reduces the right to a fair defense.

Gautam Patel: Constitutional ethics is a fine and developed concept. This is not an inherent feeling, but one should be cultivated. There is also ambiguity about its application for constitutional processes. For example, Dr. Bribedkar believed that it was prudent to determine the forms of administration instead of embedding them in the Constitution and handing over to the legislature. He said, I agree whether a form of speech qualifies as a crime, it is a case that is strictly ruled by law.

Can unholy speech be considered a “porn” speech?

Gautam Patel: A speech with impurity is not necessary porn. This understanding has developed judicial interpretation in five decades. In 1964, in the Supreme Court Ranjit d. Udeshi vs Maharashtra State Applied Victorian-era Hikrin Test for the ban Lady Chaturley Boyfriend By DH Lawrence. This defined vulgarity as anything with “a tendency to susceptible and corrupt for immoral effects”. Fifty years later, in Aveek Sarkar v. West Bengal StateThe court embraced the “community standards” tests, a more contemporary approach. However, community standards are difficult to unattractive and define. Does this mean that discussion about sex in public discourse should be prohibited? If yes, what is for our ancient art and idols? These standards continue to develop. Today, some people Lady Chaturley Boyfriend Indecent instead of a literary work.

Dushyant Dave: Pornography is not clearly defined under Criminal Law or Information Technology Act 2000. Instead, its determination is a matter of degree, which is shaped by the developed ethical standards of society. Looking at the erotic art of Khajuraho and Konark. It seems that instead of becoming more progressive, our society has come back over time. Justice Krishna Iyer caught this dilemma Raj Kapoor and ORS. v. State (1979), where the court took criminal action against the producers of the film Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram. He saw: “The relationship between reality and relativity should harass the evaluation of the obscenity of the court, expressed in the widespread humanity of the society, not in the perspective of the law.”

A recent study of the Research Group India Hate Lab increased by 74.4% in a disgusting speech against minorities by politicians in 2024. Is the tireless targeting of comedians a case of wrong priorities?

Dushyant Dave: Yes, of course. Politicians continue hatred with hatred. During the Lok Sabha elections, many politicians, including the Prime Minister, made divisive remarks against minorities. Nevertheless, the Election Commission and the State Police remained silent spectators. Opposition parties also failed to challenge these violations in the court. Meanwhile, mainstream television journalists increase disgusting speech every day. Every member of the society should give an alarm. The comedian is targeted in political lines because they highlight the uncomfortable truth. Politicians consider him as a threat. But dissatisfaction and criticism are fundamental to democracy. Sileting them paves the way for powerism.

Gautam Patel: Comedians play an important role in society by challenging and reflecting social realities. I strongly believe in Latin Maxim “In Joko Veritas – in the gesture, the truth is.” Thus, the goal of the comedian is not only unfortunate, but also condemnable. However, impurity is not humor; This is a sign of thoughtlessness. Wise humor does not require aggressive language. As a society, we should understand that the ideas of deviation are indispensable. We can either connect with them or ignore them, but cannot silence the messenger. I also agree with Dushyant that we are failing to punish the growing examples of vulgar language.

Efforts to regulate digital materials, such as the Broadcast Services (Regulation) bill, have intensified. What are your concerns?

Gautam Patel: I do not support any such regulatory efforts. Once free speech is banned, it sets a dangerous example. Censorship creates uniformity, forces all to consume the same clean information. But the essence of free speech is to prevent such conformity. In a democracy, the opinion of deviation is necessary. And, we risk slipping into powerism.

Dushyant Dave: My concern is the selective enforcement of laws. Why do censorship law mainly target opposition leaders and government critics? People are dragged into court only to criticize the government, even when their speech is reduced by treason. Laws should be implemented fairly and impartially – something that is failing to maintain the judiciary. A lively democracy demands unwavering security of free speech.

To listen to the conversation In The Hindu Parle Podcast