Free speech can't be silenced by mob fear: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday said the right of free speech and artistic freedom cannot be subjected to popular notions or silenced by a fear of mob.

It ordered the West Bengal government to pay compensation of Rs 20 lakh to the producers of a Bangla satire film for making “unconstitutional attempt” to use police power to stop screening of the movie.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta also expressed concern over growing intolerance towards the rights of others in society to freely espouse their views and to portray them in print, in the theatre or in the celluloid media.

“The true purpose of art, as manifest in its myriad forms, is to question and provoke. Art in an elemental sense reflects a human urge to question the assumptions on which societal values may be founded. In questioning prevailing social values and popular cultures, every art form seeks to espouse a vision,” Justice Chandrachud, who authored the 30-page judgement, said.

The court decried the attempts by the West Bengal police to stop screening of the movie 'Bhobishyoter Bhoot' on the ground that it would create political law and order problem.

“The police are not in a free society the self-appointed guardians of public morality. They cannot arrogate to themselves the authority to be willing allies in the suppression of dissent and obstruction of speech and expression,” it said, reminding the state of its obligation to ensure art and literature should not become "victims of intolerance".

The court said those who disagree have a simple expedient : of not watching a film, not turning the pages of the book or not hearing what is not music to their ears. “The Constitution does not permit those in authority who disagree to crush the freedom of others to believe, think and express,” it said.

The court also directed the state government to pay Rs one lakh as cost to Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd, the film producer, which had filed writ petition, questioning the orders issued by the police authorities.

“In the present case, we are of the view that there has been an unconstitutional attempt to invade the fundamental rights of the producers, the actors and the audience. Worse still, by making an example out of them, there has been an attempt to silence criticism and critique. Others who embark upon a similar venture would be subject to the chilling effect of ‘similar misadventures’. This cannot be countenanced in a free society. Freedom is not a supplicant to power,” it said.