(A Scholarly Article Written by a Law Student)
Why it *is* in the public’s interest to be given as much information as possible about the democratic societies we live in?
In a democracy, the people choose the government that they deem fit. This would mean that the government garners its governing powers from the people, and therefore as Alexander Meiklejohn[1] has explained, it is imperative that the people be given as much information as possible as it would help them with the governing function. Martin H. Redish[2] and Gautam Bhatia[3] agree with the concept that the people being the consumers, should be presented with all the information possible of competing products so that the consumers can rationally decide for themselves as to what suits their needs. Applying the same logic to the question posed above, when people are presented with the greys and not just the black and white of the information, they are in a better position to ascertain the reality and the truth by reasoning and thinking. Hence withholding of information seems more like controlling the dissemination and imposing one’s idea of what is right/true.
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Indian Constitution does not mention the freedom of the press; However, article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression, is interpreted by the apex court in a manner that includes freedom of the press within its ambit. In the Brij Bhushan case[4], Justice Sastri stated, “Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press”. Similarly, having access to all the information and being able to formulate an unbiased opinion and spreading it further is also an essential aspect of freedom of speech and expression. “It enables people to contribute to debates on social and moral issues and is the best way to find the truest model of anything while being the only vehicle of political discourse so essential to democracy.”[5]
If a journalist being a citizen, merely exercises his freedom of speech to provide as much information as possible and that act is curtailed then that curtailment defeats the whole purpose of the fundamental human right that freedom of speech and expression is.
Therefore it won’t be wrong to state that journalists are the watchdogs of the society, and restricting what they can or cannot publish is a severe impediment to the freedom of speech and expression, which is no different from that of a citizen as explained in the Romesh Thapper[6] case. While the press is not merely a watchdog, it also plays a pivotal role in educating a democratic society where it furnishes opinions and facts that facilitate a democratic electorate in making decisions that are reasonable and responsible in nature. Given the current scenario, it won’t be wrong to say that the society has become very intolerant and the fact that so many atrocities have been committed against journalists who have tried to publish the truth. What is surprising is that the government plays a major role as to how these individuals are handled in such scenarios given the fact that its these individuals that give them the power to govern them.
Now if a journalist being a citizen, merely exercises his freedom of speech to provide as much information as possible and that act is curtailed then that curtailment defeats the whole purpose of the fundamental human right that freedom of speech and expression is.
Therefore, journalistic restrictions should not be imposed.
(The author is a Law Student at Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are his own.)
REFERENCES:
[1] Alexander Meiklejohn, The First Amendment is an Absolute, 1961 Sup. CT. REV. 245 (1961).
[2] Martin H. Redish, The Value of Free Speech, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 130, No. 3,
- 591-645.
[3] Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution (2016).
[4] Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, A.I.R. 1950 S.C. 129.
[5] Union of India v Association of Democratic Reforms, 2002 (3) SCR 294.
[6] 1950,SCR,594.
