Democracy needs tolerance, not intimidation

Voltaire (21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778) was a French writer in almost every literary form, including plays, poems, novels, essays, histories, and even scientific essays. He also wrote more than 20,000 letters, 2,000 books, and pamphlets.

Unfortunately, state and non-state actors are attacking the freedom of speech and expression, including commentators and political analysts. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that freedom of expression cultivates the virtues of tolerance and self-restraint. These virtues are disappearing from public discourse.

And the so-called political leaders are using their power to attack. The latest in this category is the Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Pawan Kalyan. Apparently, he ordered the authorities not to take police action like making an ‘arrest.’ But the first information report, FIRs, is at the mercy of political leaders and police officials leaders. Their fans and workers work against many of them, attacking journalists by filing a large number of FIRs, without withdrawing some of them. It is a scheme, a plan, like a movement for a political party’s agenda. A party worker or fan, or supporter of a political party, will simply oppose and abuse, in addition to trolling, which is the misuse of social media. A chilling effect continues, deliberately. We used to say it’s increasingly that disagreement is treated as hostility. Criticism is treated as betrayal. But they cross all limits of decency and criticism of a comment and turn to intolerable abuses by the holders of high constitutional offices. Pawan Kalyan should understand this.

Questions are treated as offences. Nobody thinks that such tendencies weaken democracy. In fact, a confident democracy welcomes criticism. An insecure democracy fears it. The true strength of constitutional government lies not in its ability to silence critics but in its willingness to answer them.

A democracy does not become stronger by silencing inconvenient voices. A citizen has a duty to defend the Constitution by defending dissent.

This is not an introduction to the problem, but continues as a controversy involving popular writers. They should not be viewed as an isolated political episode. It is part of a larger struggle over the meaning of democracy in contemporary India. At stake is the right of citizens to think independently, speak freely, investigate honestly, and analyse political developments without fear. At the same time, at stake is the right of journalists to protect their sources, at stake is the right of commentators to question authority and the constitutional promise that India shall remain a Republic governed by reason rather than intimidation. That is the promise of Article 19, and that is the freedom that every citizen must defend.

Can a democratic State, political establishment, or public authority intimidate, prosecute, or silence a journalist for analysing political developments and expressing opinions based on information received from confidential sources?

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen. This provision is not merely another fundamental right. It is the lifeline of democratic governance.

In the landmark case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, the Supreme Court declared that freedom of speech and expression is the foundation of all democratic institutions. The court observed that free political discussion is indispensable to the functioning of democracy.

The judgment was delivered barely months after the Constitution came into force. Yet the court clearly understood that democracy cannot survive without criticism of governments and public officials. A citizen who cannot question power is not truly free. A journalist who cannot investigate powers cannot perform his constitutional role. A commentator who cannot analyse politics cannot contribute to democratic discourse.

India’s constitutional history reflects a deep commitment to freedom of the press. In Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that freedom of the press is an essential part of Article 19(1)(a). The judgment recognised an important principle: A democracy does not require a submissive press. It requires an independent and questioning press. Governments may prefer praise, but constitutional democracy demands scrutiny. The role of journalists is not to validate power but to examine it. Editorials, opinion columns, television discussions, public lectures, YouTube analyses, and social media commentary are modern forms of political participation. Political commentary has always been central to democratic life; it will interpret events, assess motives, evaluate decisions, and present conclusions.

Can’t criminalise comments

They may be accurate or inaccurate. They may persuade or fail to persuade. But they cannot automatically become criminal acts merely because they inconvenience powerful individuals. If every political prediction, interpretation, or criticism becomes the basis for police complaints, democratic discourse will disappear. The answer cannot be criminal intimidation.

The controversy also raises a critical issue concerning the protection of sources. Throughout the democratic world, journalists depend upon confidential sources to expose corruption, maladministration, abuse of power, and political misconduct. The demand that journalists reveal their sources is often the first step toward destroying investigative journalism.

A whistle-blower speaks only when confidentiality is assured, if not truth disappears. The European Court of Human Rights in the famous Goodwin case described source protection as one of the basic conditions of press freedom. Without such protection, potential sources would be discouraged from assisting journalists in informing the public on matters of public importance. India does not yet have a comprehensive ‘journalistic shield law’. However, constitutional principles strongly support source protection. A journalist’s duty is to verify information, not to expose the individuals who risk their careers and safety to reveal matters of public interest. When authorities ask: “Who told you this?” the constitutional question becomes: “Why should a journalist be forced to betray a source?” The burden must lie upon the State to justify any such intrusion.

The search for truth:

Every serious journalist engages in what may be called a continuous search for truth. They gather information from multiple sources, interpret events, and present conclusions for public evaluation.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that freedom of speech includes not only correct opinions but also unpopular, controversial, and even mistaken opinions. A democracy that protects only officially approved views ceases to be democratic.

Dissent is not a crime:

One of the most important constitutional principles emerging from modern free-speech jurisprudence is that dissent is indispensable. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act because it had become a weapon against free expression. One should know that this distinction is vital; discussion is protected, debate, analysis, criticism, and political disagreement are protected. These protections exist because the Constitution demands them.

The wisdom of Voltaire and Justice Holmes:

The philosophical foundations of free speech are as important as the constitutional ones.

Voltaire is famously associated with the principle: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.” The essence of democracy lies in that statement. We do not defend free speech because we like every opinion. We defend it because freedom becomes meaningless if it protects only agreeable opinions. The great American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. expressed the principle even more forcefully. Freedom of expression, he argued, means not merely freedom for the thought we agree with but “freedom for the thought that we hate.” That principle remains the gold standard of democratic tolerance.

Civil society must respond:

The defence of freedom cannot be selective. We cannot defend speech only when our friends are attacked. Nor can we remain silent when ideological opponents face censorship. Today, the target may be a journalist. Tomorrow it may be academic. Freedom survives only when society responds collectively to every attempt at suppression.

This responsibility belongs not merely to political parties but to the entire civil society. Lawyers, judges, professors, writers, journalists, and citizens must all participate in protecting constitutional freedoms.

(The writer is Advisor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)