Latest Articles
Back
CENTRE USES THE PRETENCE OF ‘FAKE NEWS’ TO SUPPRESS FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The centre sought direction from SC in recent proceedings of PIL (Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India) that no print media/electronic media/social media or web portal shall publish a print or telecast anything without identifying the true factual scenario through a mechanism provided by Central Government.
This direction was pursued in a status report submitted by the State outlining the measures it has taken to tackle the coronavirus pandemic so far. Such a path was pursued on the basis of the assertion that "Any intentional or unintentional false or inaccurate news either in electronic, print or social media and, in particular, on web portals has a significant and inevitable potential to cause panic in large sections of society.
This direction must fall within the ambit of Article 19(2) of CoI. There must be a relationship between the right to be curtailed and parameters laid down in Clause 2 of Article 19. The relationship must not be far-fetched and should clearly establish the state’s claim. We live in an era where knowledge-gathering, distribution and use have characterized human rights awareness and access. Incorporating public discourse and criticism into the fold is the foundation of successful and democratic decision making. Viewing public discourse and opposing state intervention as adversarial is misconceiving its indispensable role in building a democratic society.
Since the landmark Sakal Papers case in 1962, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled, in a string of judgments, that the right to share one's views is an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court also ruled that in the interests of the general public, freedom of the press should not be curtailed. Any limitation on press freedom must, therefore, be consistent with the provisions on Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The rights enshrined in Article 19 also include the right of the people to know. The importance of the right to transparency is evident during a global health crisis, like the one faced by the world today. Given the complex complexity of the crisis and the changing responses to it from various experts in science and medicine, there can be no single source of knowledge encompassing both analysis and expert opinion. The WHO, in its operational guidance, highlights the crucial role that media houses play in disseminating knowledge, which is arguably one of the most important steps towards combating a mammoth disease. Recognizing the capacity of free media to reveal important knowledge that might still be unknown to the state, is significant. It makes the media not only a relentless source of criticism but also an important ally for better governance.
If finally approved, the Centre’s demand would serve effectively as a gag on the free flow and dissemination of information that may not always be appealing to the government. Inevitably, such a measure would also have a chilling impact on vigorous and uncompromising journalism. The state has consistently used the jargon and pretence of "fake news" to justify the whittling down of the right to freedom of speech and expression, much as it does statements of national security and/or public interest.
The fear of fake news in Jammu and Kashmir was used to justify extreme restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedoms by curtailing internet access after the Centre read Article 370. The same concern is now being used to try to filter media coverage before release. In the battle between civil liberties and state power, the ground is typically lost bit by bit, so to keep up with the growing dilution of civil liberties one needs to be highly vigilant.
