Supreme Court Upholds Freedom of Expression in Literature

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated September 5, 2018, in the case of N. Radhakrishnan vs. Union of India & Ors., addressed a significant issue concerning freedom of expression and its limitations under the Constitution. The case revolved around a plea to ban the Malayalam novel ‘Meesha’ (Moustache), authored by S. Hareesh, on the grounds that it was derogatory to temple-going women and hurt religious sentiments.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, N. Radhakrishnan, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a ban on the novel ‘Meesha’, which had been serialized in the Malayalam weekly Mathrubhumi. He claimed that the novel contained objectionable content that defamed Hindu women and depicted them in a derogatory manner, especially in relation to their visits to temples.

The petitioner also sought a directive to seize all published copies of ‘Mathrubhumi’ that carried excerpts from the novel and to prevent further circulation of the book, including in digital format. He argued that such publications violated the reasonable restrictions placed on freedom of speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, N. Radhakrishnan, argued:

• The novel contained passages that insulted temple-going women and portrayed them in an indecent manner.
• The content of the book violated the public order, decency, and morality clause of Article 19(2).
• The publication of such material could lead to social unrest and should therefore be prohibited.
• The court should issue guidelines to prevent the publication of offensive content in the future.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Kerala, countered these claims:

• The novel was a work of fiction and should be evaluated in its entirety, rather than based on isolated passages.
• The content of the book was protected under the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Literature and art should not be censored simply because certain sections of society find them offensive.
• The book did not incite violence or public disorder and hence did not warrant a ban.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, along with Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, upheld the principles of free speech and expression, delivering a strong defense of creative freedom.

1. Literature Must Be Viewed as a Whole

The Court emphasized that books and literary works must be evaluated in their entirety rather than by cherry-picking certain excerpts:

“A book should not be read in a fragmented manner. It has to be read as a whole, considering the ideas developed, the themes projected, and the artistic expression of the author.”

2. No Ban on Creative Freedom

The Court ruled that banning a book on the mere claim of it being offensive would set a dangerous precedent:

“If books are banned on such allegations, there can be no creativity. Such interference by constitutional courts will cause the death of art.”

3. Readers Must Exhibit Tolerance

The Court stressed the importance of tolerance in a democratic society:

“Readers and admirers of literature must exhibit a certain degree of adherence to the unwritten codes of maturity, humanity, and tolerance.”

4. No Immediate Threat to Public Order

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that the book posed a risk to public order:

“There is no proximate or direct link between the content of the book and any threat to public order. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural, or far-fetched.”

5. Artistic Expression Should Not Be Curbed

The Court reiterated the importance of artistic freedom:

“Creative voices cannot be stifled or silenced. Intellectual freedom cannot be annihilated. Any form of censorship directly impacts the free flow of ideas.”

Final Judgment

Considering all the arguments and legal principles, the Supreme Court ruled:

• The petition was dismissed.
• There was no legal basis to ban the novel ‘Meesha’.
• The Court reaffirmed that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be curtailed unless there is a direct violation of constitutional limits.
• No censorship guidelines were deemed necessary, as existing legal provisions were sufficient to regulate offensive content.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has far-reaching consequences for free speech and literary expression in India.

1. Protection of Literary Freedom

The ruling reinforces that authors and artists have the right to create without undue interference.

2. Censorship Cannot Be Based on Personal Offense

The decision affirms that individual discomfort or disagreement with a literary work is not a valid reason for censorship.

3. Judiciary’s Role in Protecting Free Speech

The Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding constitutional freedoms and preventing unwarranted censorship.

4. Encouragement of Tolerance in Society

The judgment highlights the need for society to be more accepting of diverse perspectives in art and literature.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in N. Radhakrishnan vs. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark decision that strengthens the principles of free speech, artistic freedom, and tolerance. The judgment ensures that literature cannot be banned merely because certain sections of society find it offensive. By rejecting the petition, the Court has set a crucial precedent in protecting creative expression in India.

Petitioner Name: N. Radhakrishnan.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 05-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: N. Radhakrishnan vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category