1. Core Argument of the Editorial

• Indian judiciary is retreating from its role as a defender of free speech.
  
  
• Increasingly, courts are validating outrage and sentiment over constitutional principles.
  
  
• This shift marks a regression in democratic values and threatens liberty and dissent.
  
  

 2. Constitutional Position on Free Speech

• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
  
  
• Article 19(2): Provides for reasonable restrictions, but courts are now stretching this to accommodate subjective sentiments.
  
  
• Earlier: Free speech was the shield against tyranny.
  
  
• Now: Speech is evaluated based on its potential to offend or “hurt sentiments.”
  
  

 3. Key Cases and Examples Highlighted

a. Operation Shinar Incident (May 2023)

• A 24-year-old arrested for a post on PM Modi.
  
  
• Allahabad HC said “sentiments cannot be permitted to override constitutional rights.”
  
  

b. Kamal Haasan–Kichcha Sudeep Controversy

• Actor told to apologize for hurting Tamil sentiments.
  
  
• Karnataka HC upheld need to apologize to the “sentiments”, not legality.
  
  

c. Ashim Malamudabad Incident

• Professor critiqued India-Pakistan politics.
  
  
• University acted based on student outrage, not on constitutional assessment.
  
  

d. Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case

• Conviction upheld on questionable grounds.
  
  
• Reflects the judiciary’s tendency to uphold emotions over legal merit.
  
  

 4. Major Issues Raised

a. Judiciary’s Misreading of Article 19(2)

• Focuses on outrage and offence, not on whether speech actually incites violence.
  
  
• Courts are becoming moral arbiters rather than constitutional protectors.
  
  

b. Impact on Dissent and Public Discourse

• Individuals now self-censor out of fear.
  
  
• Judicial endorsement of sensitivity leads to stifling of public opinion, humour, satire, criticism.
  
  

c. Outrage Culture Empowered

• Courts demand apologies/remorse instead of legal scrutiny.
  
  
• Sentiment becomes the standard, not the Constitution.
  
  

 5. Philosophical and Legal Concerns

• “Chilling Effect”: Over-criminalisation of speech creates fear.
  
  
• Test of free speech is how society tolerates discomfort, not how it rewards politeness.
  
  
• Courts need to uphold reasoned liberty over emotional reactivity.
  
  

 6. Signal to the Citizen

• The growing judicial deference to sentiments:
  
  
  • Encourages moral policing.
    
    
  • Delegitimises dissent and criticism.
    
    
  • Sends the wrong signal — that expression must please, not provoke.
    
    

 7. Call for Judicial Recalibration

• Judiciary must return to its primary constitutional role:
  
  
  • Defend the right to offend, not manage outrage.
    
    
  • Separate individual choice from public pressure.
    
    
  • Assess constitutional legality, not emotional damage.
    
    

8. Conclusion

• Remorse and outrage should not override legality.
  
  
• Courts must resist becoming instruments of populist moralism.
  
  

India needs a judiciary that upholds reasoned liberty, not just regulated speech.