Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, November 22
Those disagreeing with or having reservations against a work of art are under no compulsion to watch or view the same, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj has also made it clear the restriction prescribed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution does not confer any superior right to freedom of speech and expression on one person over the other. It cannot be interpreted to mean that every other person must express himself to the liking of an objector.
Court observation
The ability to communicate ideas cannot be controlled by the acceptability of a view. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, HC
He said it would, rather, truncate the spirit of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and subjugate the right to the whims and caprices of anyone and everyone. Besides this, there could not be other checks and balances, once adequate mechanisms and guidelines had been prescribed under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, for public exhibition of movies. The assertions came as Justice Bhardwaj refused to stay the screening of a Punjabi movie.
He said an event may have diverse perspectives and narratives. Such a narrative was not on account of the event, but the perspective from the protagonist or the writer’s point of view.
“Hence, it cannot be said that an event portrayed a character or person in a shade other than the belief of an objector and that any such portrayal needs to be changed.”
Justice Bhardwaj said the ability to communicate ideas could not be controlled by the acceptability of a view. Moral arguments for the restriction on freedom of speech could mean infringement of autonomy or dignity of the other. The rule of law could not be negated or be made to surrender under intimidation.
Justice Bhardwaj observed: “The understanding of the right cannot be left to an abstract understanding by an uncontrolled regime, devoid of reason and objectivity, thus silencing speech and expression. Such intolerant groups pose danger to the constitutional right allowing everyone to espouse their views.”
He was also of the view that art and artist had been challenging contemporary wisdom and belief. Every such question, satire or criticism questioning beliefs and perceptions could not be silenced by force or intimidation.
