Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes: What a free speech regime requires
In democracies across the world, including India, the debate around free speech has never been more intense or more urgent. On paper, freedom of expression remains a guaranteed constitutional right. But in practice, its foundations are increasingly fragile—eroded by state control, societal intolerance, and institutional silence. A healthy free speech regime, as political theorist Pratap Bhanu Mehta argues, is not simply about the legal right to speak. It is about nurturing a broader culture that respects dissent, protects individuality, and guards democratic institutions against authoritarian impulses.
Individual Freedom Over Collective Sentiment
At the heart of any vibrant speech regime lies the principle of individual autonomy. Speech should be protected not because it aligns with the sentiments of a religious group, political faction, or cultural majority—but because the individual is sovereign over their thoughts and voice.
This idea runs counter to the increasingly popular notion that collective offence should be grounds for censorship. If someone’s words are seen as hurting a community’s feelings or religious beliefs, calls for retribution often follow. But democracy is not built to protect sensitivities—it is designed to protect rights. And one of the most critical rights is the freedom to question, criticize, and even offend.
A society where speech must constantly tiptoe around the emotional comfort of groups is one where truth is stifled, and debate is replaced by dogma.
The State Must Set a High Bar for Restriction
Not all speech is defensible, but restrictions must be rare, narrow, and clearly justified. The gold standard for limiting speech has long been the “clear and present danger” test—meaning the speech must be directly inciting violence or causing imminent harm to public order.
Unfortunately, in India and many democracies, governments increasingly use vague laws such as sedition, public nuisance, or “hurting sentiments” to criminalize dissent. These laws are often wielded not to protect the public but to protect those in power from scrutiny.
A true free speech regime would raise the bar much higher. Criticism of the government, satire of public figures, or artistic expression—however uncomfortable—should be off-limits for state censorship. The role of the state is to ensure peace and fairness, not to become a moral gatekeeper.
Offence Is Not Harm
We must clearly distinguish between emotional offence and actual harm. Feeling offended by someone’s opinion is not the same as being harmed by it. Mehta’s argument reminds us that democracies thrive only when citizens can endure uncomfortable truths.
This does not mean that hate speech should be tolerated. But the definition of hate speech must be precise. It must involve calls to violence, threats, or deliberate incitement of hatred against vulnerable groups—not mere disagreement, criticism, or religious irreverence.
If offence becomes the test for censorship, then everything becomes offensive to someone. The result is a society where free expression is impossible.
Institutions Must Be Independent and Courageous
For free speech to survive, we need more than just good laws—we need strong institutions. Independent courts, fearless media, and autonomous universities are the pillars of a speech-protecting democracy.
Yet many institutions have grown timid. Media outlets self-censor to avoid government retaliation. Universities hesitate to host controversial speakers. Courts sometimes delay or deny relief to those who are jailed for their opinions. This institutional weakness emboldens censors and silences reformers.
To build a robust speech culture, institutions must be shielded from political pressure and encouraged to act in defence of liberty, not fear.
Tolerance Is a Civic Virtue
A culture of free speech demands emotional discipline. Citizens must learn to tolerate views they dislike, satire they find tasteless, and opinions they find radical. Liberal democracy is not about consensus—it’s about the right to disagree peacefully.
This does not mean that people should be indifferent to harmful rhetoric. But the answer to bad speech is better speech, not censorship. Societies mature when they engage ideas openly rather than banning them.
The Constitutional Culture Must Be Deepened
Finally, Mehta stresses that constitutions are not self-executing. Their values must be embedded in the daily practice of citizens, judges, teachers, and politicians. A free speech regime cannot be built on paper alone—it needs a living culture of liberty.
That means teaching citizens about their rights, holding public officials accountable, and resisting the steady drift toward authoritarianism. It also means being vigilant when governments seek to consolidate power or define the boundaries of public discourse.
Free speech is not merely a right—it is a moral and political commitment to democracy itself.
Conclusion
A true free speech regime is not one where people can only speak when it is convenient, comfortable, or approved by the majority. It is one where every individual—regardless of belief, background, or politics—has the space to think, speak, and challenge authority. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta reminds us, this vision requires more than court rulings or constitutional promises. It requires a deep, unwavering public commitment to liberty, tolerance, and truth. Only then can we build a democracy that listens—not just to power, but to its people.
