Opinion

Why it is difficult to take the Supreme Court’s remarks on Jayalalithaa seriously

The apex court must take responsibility, starting with its own recent judgement on criminal defamation.

The Supreme Court, in a petition filed by actor-turned-politician Vijayakanth, had some not-very-nice things to say to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa in the context of her government’s propensity to file multiple criminal defamation cases against critics of her regime.

While an official response to these comments is not likely to be forthcoming, one can imagine Jayalalithaa reading this report with a quiet but dismissive chuckle. So also would any person enjoying a position of political or monetary power in India.

After all, having been given a carte blanche in a signed judgment – which constitutes binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution – it is highly unlikely that anyone who uses criminal defamation law to crush dissent and criticism is likely to take this headline-grabbing lecture seriously.

The rest of us, though, can be forgiven for grinding our teeth in frustration at the Supreme Court’s cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy on this matter.

Cognitive dissonance

Much has already been written about what was so egregiously wrong about the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the constitutional validity of the criminal defamation law, namely Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Its florid verbosity, vast gaps in reasoning, and an approach tangential to the case being set up by the petitioners, have all come for valid and entirely justified criticism. What is most galling though was the judgment’s utter failure to properly engage with the core of the argument against criminal defamation – that by not providing adequate safeguards against abuse, it was not a “reasonable restriction” to the right to freedom of speech and expression.

It bears repeating that the Constitution doesn’t just protect the freedom of speech and expression in the abstract. When it uses the words “reasonable restriction” it requires judges to apply their minds to the likely and actual effect of a law on the freedom of speech and expression. It is also important to remember that the Constitution originally did not use the word “reasonable” when it came to restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. Contrary to the oft-peddled, incoherent lie that “Nehru introduced restrictions on freedom of speech and expression”, the fact that the First Amendment of the Constitution introduced the phrase “reasonable restriction” actually allowed a greater scope for judicial review of laws which placed restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court failed to do its constitutional duty in properly examining whether the criminal defamation law, as it stands and as it has been (mis)used, is a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression or not. Had it done so, even if it had come to the conclusion that the law per se did not violate freedom of speech and expression, it would have at least thought it fit to address the obvious scope for abuse by setting forth guidelines and directions as it has done in other cases.

Having done neither, to offer lessons in rajdharma from the bench by way of off-hand observations during the course of hearing that brings to light such obvious abuse of the criminal defamation law, is to rub salt on open wounds. What makes it even worse though is the message the court preached – be more tolerant of criticism – is hardly one that it has practiced.

Criticism of the court and contempt of court

For a body that plays such an important constitutional role in a democratic system of governance, the Supreme Court’s response to criticism has been one of either complete aloofness to criticism or to respond with contempt of court proceedings. As this writer has said before, the effect of the Supreme Court’s approach to using contempt has been to engender self-censorship among people when talking or writing about the courts for fear of being dragged through contempt proceedings. Far from being institutions that uphold the freedom of speech and expression, the Supreme Court and High Courts in India have acted in a manner almost identical to politicians and businesses when it comes to stifling criticism. The latest observations, coming from an institution with hardly the most enlightened approach to criticism, have to be taken with plentiful helpings of salt.

In hindsight, the Supreme Court judgment in the Shreya Singhal case, when it struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, looks more and more as an outlier rather than a harbinger of jurisprudential change. The approach, the analysis, and the conception of freedom of speech that made the judgment a true landmark for civil liberties in India is being increasingly shrunk by subsequent judgments that have given short shrift to it. Indeed, the Supreme Court has even invented new grounds (not found in the Constitution) to further restrict freedom of speech.

The hour is still not too late. The contradictory approaches in the Shreya Singhal case and the criminal defamation case need to be addressed and a coherent line of thinking needs to emerge from the court. If the Court is serious about preventing misuse of criminal defamation laws, it must accept that its approach in the earlier case requires a re-think, preferably by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. It cannot afford to leave citizens’ right of dissent entirely at the mercy of the government.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Not just for experts: How videography is poised for a disruption

Digital solutions are making sure it’s easier than ever to express your creativity in moving images.

Where was the last time you saw art? Chances are on a screen, either on your phone or your computer. Stunning photography and intricate doodles are a frequent occurrence in the social feeds of many. That’s the defining feature of art in the 21st century - it fits in your pocket, pretty much everyone’s pocket. It is no more dictated by just a few elite players - renowned artists, museum curators, art critics, art fair promoters and powerful gallery owners. The digital age is spawning creators who choose to be defined by their creativity more than their skills. The negligible incubation time of digital art has enabled experimentation at staggering levels. Just a few minutes of browsing on the online art community, DeviantArt, is enough to gauge the scope of what digital art can achieve.

Sure enough, in the 21st century, entire creative industries are getting democratised like never before. Take photography, for example. Digital photography enabled everyone to capture a memory, and then convert it into personalised artwork with a plethora of editing options. Apps like Instagram reduced the learning curve even further with its set of filters that could lend character to even unremarkable snaps. Prisma further helped to make photos look like paintings, shaving off several more steps in the editing process. Now, yet another industry is showing similar signs of disruption – videography.

Once burdened by unreliable film, bulky cameras and prohibitive production costs, videography is now accessible to anyone with a smartphone and a decent Internet bandwidth. A lay person casually using social media today has so many video types and platforms to choose from - looping Vine videos, staccato Musical.lys, GIFs, Instagram stories, YouTube channels and many more. Videos are indeed fast emerging as the next front of expression online, and so are the digital solutions to support video creation.

One such example is Vizmato, an app which enables anyone with a smartphone to create professional-looking videos minus the learning curve required to master heavy, desktop software. It makes it easy to shoot 720p or 1080p HD videos with a choice of more than 40 visual effects. This fuss- free app is essentially like three apps built into one - a camcorder with live effects, a feature-rich video editor and a video sharing platform.

With Vizmato, the creative process starts at the shooting stage itself as it enables live application of themes and effects. Choose from hip hop, noir, haunted, vintage and many more.

The variety of filters available on Vizmato
The variety of filters available on Vizmato

Or you can simply choose to unleash your creativity at the editing stage; the possibilities are endless. Vizmato simplifies the core editing process by making it easier to apply cuts and join and reverse clips so your video can flow exactly the way you envisioned. Once the video is edited, you can use a variety of interesting effects to give your video that extra edge.

The RGB split, Inset and Fluidic effects.
The RGB split, Inset and Fluidic effects.

You can even choose music and sound effects to go with your clip; there’s nothing like applause at the right moment, or a laugh track at the crack of the worst joke.

Or just annotated GIFs customised for each moment.

Vizmato is the latest offering from Global Delight, which builds cross-platform audio, video and photography applications. It is the Indian developer that created award-winning iPhone apps such as Camera Plus, Camera Plus Pro and the Boom series. Vizmato is an upgrade of its hugely popular app Game Your Video, one of the winners of the Macworld Best of Show 2012. The overhauled Vizmato, in essence, brings the Instagram functionality to videos. With instant themes, filters and effects at your disposal, you can feel like the director of a sci-fi film, horror movie or a romance drama, all within a single video clip. It even provides an in-built video-sharing platform, Popular, to which you can upload your creations and gain visibility and feedback.

Play

So, whether you’re into making the most interesting Vines or shooting your take on Ed Sheeran’s ‘Shape of You’, experience for yourself how Vizmato has made video creation addictively simple. Android users can download the app here and iOS users will have their version in January.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Vizmato and not by the Scroll editorial team.