Stretching freedom of expression
A basic knowledge of law would reveal that 'shoe showering' results in an external contemptuous manifestation of one's anger made in public towards a person who is a sitting people's representative.
BEFORE HEADING towards a civic congregation, it has become imperative to make certain if your shoelaces are unfastened, for the most trendy form of expressing oneself is to hit the bull’s eye—with a shoe. This act of ‘shoe showering’ is highly expected to be put under the umbrella of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the sacred document in so far as the shoe says it all.
However, this act of complacency cannot be encouraged - legally, morally or economically. Economically because it is left to my wonder if the shoes are reinstated to those who proffer it. Morally, the less said, the better. And legally, prima facie no!
While the economic and moral repercussions are individual worries, my leading apprehension is the legal corollary of the act. Whenever there is talk on media, there is a concurrent talk on speech and expression. As if article 19 which enshrines this right is the attribute of the media. It is, to be sure. However, where there are laws there are exceptions. If a right exists, there also exists a corresponding duty or obligation to respect others rights. For, democracy is not an attribute of a few. First of all it is imperative to find out if such a right in fact exists.
While the economic and moral repercussions are individual worries, my leading apprehension is the legal corollary of the act. Whenever there is talk on media, there is a concurrent talk on speech and expression. As if article 19 which enshrines this right is the attribute of the media. It is, to be sure. However, where there are laws there are exceptions. If a right exists, there also exists a corresponding duty or obligation to respect others rights. For, democracy is not an attribute of a few. First of all it is imperative to find out if such a right in fact exists.
The ‘shoe showering’ episode, by every stretch of imagination, can only be argued on the founding stones of article 19(1) (a) which provides for democratic right to speech and expression. Clause 2 of the article itself lists a number of exceptions to the said right viz. reasonable restrictions can be imposed for the purposes of protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations of the foreign state, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
On a perusal of these exceptions, it is crystal clear that throwing shoes at people’s representatives would inevitably fall under exceptions ‘decency or morality’, ‘defamation’ and if over stretched under ‘public order’. Throwing shoes at others, even worse on public authorities, is against all notions of known fairness and against all considerations of public policy. It is indecent and highly immoral to take one’s shoes off and throw it at someone who does not necessarily hold your opinion or is silent to your relentless protests.
There are more decent and moral ways to voice your opinion which are best known to journalists. Moreover, throwing shoes at somebody who is a representative of the people at a time when he is acting in his official capacity amounts to contempt of that person. The law of defamation is simple. First, there has to be a contemptuous statement---it could be either written or spoken or any external manifestation, secondly that contemptuous statement must refer to the person against whom it is made and lastly, it should not be made in private.
A basic knowledge of law would reveal that ‘shoe showering’ results in an external contemptuous manifestation of one’s anger made in public towards a person who is a sitting people’s representative. If the law fits into this statement, it is, if anything, defamation. Whatever be the cause, any deliberate act that lowers the self esteem of any citizen of India and which furthers political interests another citizen is not permissible in a liberal democratic system and is liable to be compensated for.
On a perusal of these exceptions, it is crystal clear that throwing shoes at people’s representatives would inevitably fall under exceptions ‘decency or morality’, ‘defamation’ and if over stretched under ‘public order’. Throwing shoes at others, even worse on public authorities, is against all notions of known fairness and against all considerations of public policy. It is indecent and highly immoral to take one’s shoes off and throw it at someone who does not necessarily hold your opinion or is silent to your relentless protests.
There are more decent and moral ways to voice your opinion which are best known to journalists. Moreover, throwing shoes at somebody who is a representative of the people at a time when he is acting in his official capacity amounts to contempt of that person. The law of defamation is simple. First, there has to be a contemptuous statement---it could be either written or spoken or any external manifestation, secondly that contemptuous statement must refer to the person against whom it is made and lastly, it should not be made in private.
A basic knowledge of law would reveal that ‘shoe showering’ results in an external contemptuous manifestation of one’s anger made in public towards a person who is a sitting people’s representative. If the law fits into this statement, it is, if anything, defamation. Whatever be the cause, any deliberate act that lowers the self esteem of any citizen of India and which furthers political interests another citizen is not permissible in a liberal democratic system and is liable to be compensated for.
 | Previous Post |
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
