theoryofabrogation

Tag: Freedom

Freedom of Religion

        Freedom of Religion People of Asia are very closely related to their religion. For people religion is everything, they want to follow their religion and live their life with their religious beliefs. What is the Right to Freedom of Religion guaranteed by the Indian Constitution? As India is a Secular country, the word secular is interpreted with different meanings all over the world. So, What is Secularism in India? How it is introduced in Indian Constitution and how it is different from other countries. What is religious freedom according to the American Constitution? How the Supreme Court of India has interpreted Freedom of Religion and what are reasonable restrictions on this freedom? Introduction Religion is deeply connected to the people of Asia. As in the case of India, a country with a history of the oldest civilization having faith in religion. In India people have been followers of their religion since ancient times, they worship their Gods according to their beliefs. India has a vast diversity of people with different religious beliefs. So it is very essential to understand ‘what is religion?’, ‘How it is interpreted in India?’, So that we can understand its freedom and restrictions in the current period what role does the Supreme Court of India play in the protection of these freedoms, and how does the Government control it with reasonable limits? As no right can be provided without any restrictions for its effective enjoyment. So what are reasonable limits concerning Freedom of Religion? How does India with a diversity of people be able to secure its secular status how Secularism is interpreted in India and how it is different from other countries of the world? So to completely understand these questions we need to know what is religion. What is Religion? A belief in the existence of God, who is superior to everything and is the controller of everything in the universe. A person is said to be a follower or believer of a religion who follows the religion in the manner provided by that religion and worships God as per that religion. The word religion is nowhere defined in the Constitution of India and indeed it is a term that is hardly susceptible to any rigid definition. The Supreme Court of India has defined the word religion in its various judgments. In H.R.E vs L.T.Swamiar, the Supreme Court interpreted religion broadly as a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. A religion may only lay down a code of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances, ceremonies, and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and those forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress.  Fundamental Right of Freedom of Religion [ Article -25  ] The right is not absolute, this right is subject to public order, morality, health, and the other provisions of Part 3 of the Constitution. Also under sub-clauses a and b of cl 2 of Article.25, the state is empowered by law (i) to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity that may be associated with religious practice, (ii) to provide for social welfare and reform, and to throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and section of Hindus. Thus, under Article 25(1) a person has twofold freedom; (a) freedom of conscience, and (b) freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. The freedom of conscience is the absolute inner freedom of the person to mold his relation with God in whatever manner he likes. To ‘profess’ a religion means to declare freely and openly one’s faith and belief. • To ‘practice’ religion is to perform the prescribed religious duties, rites, and rituals, and to exhibit his religious beliefs and ideas by such acts as prescribed by the religion. To ‘propagate’ means to spread and publicize his religious view for the edification of others. But the propagation only indicates persuasion and exposition without any element of coercion. Restrictions on Freedom of Religion As no right is absolute, every right is subject to some restrictions. The reasonable restrictions on Freedom of Religion as provided by the Constitution of India are :  1-Religious liberty subject to public order, morality, and health: In the name of religion, no act can be done against public order, morality, and health. Such acts, which fall under these restrictions can not be justified on plea of practice of religious rites. In the name of religion ‘untouchability or traffic in human beings’ can not be tolerated. 2-Regulation of economic, financial, political, and secular activities associated with religious practice: The freedom to practice extends only to those activities which are the essence of religion. It doesn’t cover secular activities that do not form religion’s essence. It is not always easy to say which activities fall under religious practice or which are of a secular, commercial, or political nature associated with religious practice. Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs [ Article 26] :  Article 26 of the Constitution of India Guarantees certain rights to the religious denomination of any section of religion. The word Denomination is not defined in the Constitution of India. According to Webster’s Dictionary, it means “Collection of individuals classed together under the same name”. The Supreme Court of India in S.P.Mittal VS Union of India provided three requirements to be fulfilled for being a religious denomination, requirements are: [1] It must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs that they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being. [2] must have a common organization. [3] It must be designated by a distinctive name. So, what Art. 26 says is that, subject to public order, morality and health every religious denomination of any section of it shall have the following rights: To establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, To manage its affairs in matters of religion, To own and acquire movable and immovable…

Indian Constitution

Freedom Of Speech

Freedom of speech consists of the freedom to express one’s views in the form of expressed and implied manner.  It is an important concept that is adopted by all democratic countries. Sedition and defamation are 2 concepts that limit the concept of freedom of speech. Sedition is a concept to prevent speech against the government that incites violence against it and defamation, on the other hand, refers to false statements that harm an individual’s reputation. But nowadays these 2 concepts are used adversely to limit the freedom of speech. The blog concludes with an opinion on how these 2 concepts are used in an adverse way to deter freedom of speech. Introduction It is well established historical fact that on numerous occasions Government is accused of using sedition and defamation law adversely to protect its interest and deter journalists, activists, and opposition political leaders. Using these provisions of the IPC and the constitution infringes the fundamental right enshrined under part III of the constitution of India and undermines the functioning of democracy in India. Whereas defamation is defined under section 499 of IPC as Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes. Constitutionality Of Sedition As Limit On Freedom Of Speech Sedition was a concept introduced in 1870 during the British Indian colonial government under section 124-A, with a view to suppressing dissent and controlling India’s Independence moment, which defined sedition as any act or attempt to bring hatred, contempt, or excite dissatisfaction towards government established by law in India. If we literally interpret this section, It says that whosoever by expressed or implied means brings or attempts to bring hatred, contempt, or dissatisfaction towards the government established by law in India, this section puts a limitation on freedom of speech which results in infringement of fundamental right art.19 enshrined under part III of the Indian constitution. Cases There are many cases where the government used it in an adverse manner in its own interest against journalists and activists. Kishorechandr Wagmare, a journalist was charged with sedition for making cartoonist posts on social media sites. [1] A YouTuber was also charged with sedition for posting a video on his YouTube channel stating that PM had used facilities and terror incidents to obtain votes, In this case Supreme Court had laid out that every citizen has the right to criticize and comment on the actions of government and its official as long as he does not incite violence against the public. As a journalist addressing subjects of major importance so that enough attention might be given, can not be accused of propagating or misleading information. [2] In this case, the Supreme Court observed that expressing a point of view that differs from a decision made by the central government does not amount to sedition.[3] If we see sedition and the use of sedition by the government through the lens of Article 19 of the constitution of India, It is witnessed that the government in most cases uses this section against activists and journalists who are raising subjects in the interest of society and but such subjects are against the government of India. This clearly infringes on the principles of democratic values. Freedom of speech Freedom of speech is a very vast concept and there must be some limits that prevent the adverse use of this concept. Sedition puts limits upon it but if we interpret this section, the words ‘disaffection towards the government’ imply whosoever expresses his views which are against the government. Supreme Court in this regard said that a provision after its literal interpretation shall be interpreted by considering the antecedent history of the legislation. So this section was inserted by the British government to suppress the political movements and Indian freedom struggle and was framed with a view of colonial principles. In today’s era and in a country running on democratic principles this section is ultra vires to those principles.[4] There should be an amendment of some terms in section 124A, the section shall include the word ‘ insurrection’ instead of ‘disaffection’ which allows the citizens to freely express their disaffection towards governmental policies and conduct and limits such disaffection from gaining the tendency of violence. Thus this section in literal view is ultra vires with regard to the constitution of India. CONCLUSION In this blog, I analyzed the constitutionality of sedition and defamation laws in India and argued that they are often used by the government in an adverse manner to suppress freedom of speech and expression. The statement suggests that there should be amendments to these laws to align them with modern democratic values. The arguments presented in the statement are logical and coherent and are supported by examples and case laws. [1] Kishore Chandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India (2021) [2] Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021) [3] Rajat Sharma v. Union of India (2021) [4] Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar, 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769   Written By – Rahul Aaryan

Indian Constitution