Expressing Patriotism over Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Judicial Overreach by Supreme Court
"Expressing Patriotism over Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Judicial Overreach by the Supreme Court" — deals with a sensitive and significant constitutional debate in India. Below is a structured explanation and argument you could use to write an essay or article around this theme.
Expressing Patriotism over Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Judicial Overreach by the Supreme Court
Introduction
The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
However, in recent years, the Supreme Court has delivered certain rulings and observations that seem to prioritize enforced patriotism—such as compulsory national anthem directives—over individual freedoms.
This has raised concerns over whether the judiciary is overstepping its constitutional role, veering into judicial overreach.
Understanding the Conflict
Freedom of Speech and Expression includes:
The right to dissent
The right to remain silent
The right to artistic expression
Patriotism, on the other hand, is a sentiment, not a legal obligation.
The Supreme Court, in some cases, has interpreted patriotism as a duty enforceable even at the cost of personal liberty.
Key Example: National Anthem Case
Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016)
The SC directed that:
The National Anthem must be played in cinema halls before movies.
Everyone must stand to show respect.
The order raised questions:
Does the judiciary have the authority to impose such obligations?
Is standing for the anthem the only valid expression of patriotism?
Later, in 2018, the Court modified its order and made playing the anthem optional — showing retreat from overreach.
What is Judicial Overreach?
When the judiciary exceeds its constitutional mandate, it enters the domain of the legislature or executive.
In this context:
The Court created a rule (anthem in theatres) instead of interpreting law, which is traditionally the judiciary’s role.
It imposed a uniform standard of patriotism, which may violate individual autonomy and freedom of conscience.
Why It's Problematic
Violation of Fundamental Rights
Compelled patriotism may violate Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty).
Patriotism Cannot Be Enforced
As per Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (later Chief Justice), "there is no requirement of standing up in a cinema hall to be considered patriotic."
Chilling Effect on Dissent
Forced expressions can suppress dissent and undermine democracy.
Blurring Separation of Powers
By acting like a policy-maker, the judiciary risks undermining democratic checks and balances.
Counterpoint: The Role of the Judiciary in Nation-Building
Some argue the Court was trying to promote national unity and respect.
In times of social and political tension, symbolic acts (like the anthem) may help build national identity.
However, symbolism cannot override constitutional rights.
Conclusion
While patriotism is valuable, it must flow from conviction, not compulsion. The judiciary's role is to protect constitutional freedoms, not to enforce uniformity in expressions of national loyalty. When the Supreme Court imposes performative patriotism through its rulings, it risks crossing the line into judicial overreach, threatening the very liberties it is meant to safeguard.
RELATED Blog
0 comments