NEW DELHI: More than 1,70,000 words. Over 400 articles. 106 amendments. The sheer scale of the world’s longest Constitution may seem overwhelming — until one realises that much of the debate often circles back to a single article: Article 19. Not because it gives you wings, but because the party in power decides how high you fly.
The article was at the centre of the political discourse when comedian Kunal Kamra‘s indirect criticism of Maharashtra’s deputy CM Eknath Shinde sparked a massive controversy, particularly after Shiv Sena workers went on a rampage, vandalising Mumbai’s Habitat studio, where the comic had performed.
What followed was predictable yet revealing. Rivals of the ruling Mahayuti and opposition parties rushed to back Kunal Kamra, criticising the Yuti alliance for its silence on the issue. Their major argument in Kamra’s defence was his right to speak and express.
Mahayuti vs MVA over Kunal Kamra
But do political parties truly stand for freedom of speech and expression? Or do they defend Article 19 when in opposition and hide behind 19(2), which talks about reasonable restrictions, when in power — using it as a tool of convenience?
There have been ample instances when parties took action against critics, merely for sharing a cartoon or writing a one-liner – let alone being actively involved in criticism.
The same Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena, which is in the forefront to defend Kamra, assaulted and shaved the head of a Wadala man who had allegedly made derogatory remarks against Thackeray in 2019 when he was the Maharashtra CM.
In 2020, under the Uddhav regime, the Shiv Sena workers thrashed a retired Indian Navy man at his housing society. His fault? The veteran had shared on WhatsApp a cartoon featuring Uddhav Thackeray.
Parties’ reaction after Navy man was thrased
Similarly, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished parts of Kangana Ranaut’s Mumbai office, citing illegal construction, shortly after her remarks against the Uddhav government.
Marathi actor Ketki Chitale was arrested in 2022 for sharing objectionable posts on her Facebook wall against NCP leader Sharad Pawar, who shared power with Uddhav Thackeary’s Shiv Sena back then. Interestingly, this happened without any hue and cry from political parties defending Kamra.
Past incidents under MVA government
Well, it’s not just Shiv Sena and NCP in the docks. Almost every party in power follows a similar playbook. The BJP, Congress, Mamata Banerjee’s TMC, MK Stalin’s DMK, and Arvind Kejriwal’s AAP — all the parties that have ruled after the social media boom of 2016 — have reacted disproportionately to criticisms.
In April 2018, Tamil folk singer Kovan (S. Sivadas) was arrested for criticising PM Modi and the central government’s policies during protests over the Cauvery water dispute. In 2022, YouTuber Roddur Roy was arrested for making “derogatory remarks” against West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee in his videos.
That same year, DMK minister Senthil Balaji secured a court injunction against YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar, alleging a defamatory smear campaign. Punjab Police booked poet and ex-AAP leader Kumar Vishwas for ‘inflammatory’ remarks against Arvind Kejriwal.
In Karnataka, Yakshagana artist Poornesh Acharya was suspended by his troupe after mimicking Rahul Gandhi in a 2018 performance. The Siddaramaiah-led Karnataka government issued a notice under the model code of conduct, citing the troupe’s affiliation with a state-run temple. The list goes on.
“Political parties, unfortunately, do not uphold the principles they talk about. The opportunism stems from self-interest. No party holds moral authority on this issue. Not one I can think of. They use dissent when out of power and curb it when they are in power,” said Kamlesh Singh, a senior journalist and columnist, on why parties shift their stance depending on whether they are in power or opposition.
Tehseen Poonawalla, a political analyst, said: “Every political party in India, across the spectrum, has abused free speech, misused the laws, misused the agencies to go after people and has encouraged mobs to teach a lesson to people they don’t agree with or those who have been overly critical of them.”
The question that ultimately arises is: What’s free speech and what’s not? Should the term “reasonable restrictions” in Article 19(2), introduced through the First Amendment in 1951, be more clearly defined to protect artists?
Article 19 (2)
Kamlesh Singh says: “What is reasonable is not defined, and even restrictions is quite an umbrella term. Codifying precise boundaries won’t be easy, but a serious attempt must be made to let people know what decency or public morality is. Because it’s different for different people. Public order, too, is vague. You can get a bunch of nutcases protesting against a work of art or an artiste and use that to clamp on expression.”
Poonawalla, agreeing that provision of 19 (2) needs to be clearly defined, said that it has been “defined by the honorable Supreme Court in many judgements”, adding that “yet these provisions are deliberately misused by the political parties to restrict freedoms”.
“Article 19(2), which restricts freedom on speech on certain grounds is not to be used illiberaly. It must be used in a very liberal context,” he added.
Highlighting the misuse of bhasphemy and sedition laws, Poonawalla said that the government passes draconian laws under the guise of Article 19 (2), which has a “chilling effect on freedom of speech”.
On the way forward to ensure artists have the freedom to criticise all three wings of democracy without getting tangled in frivolous court cases, Kamlesh Singh said: “Artistes don’t need any special right to criticise the executive, legislature or the judiciary. They should, however, have the same rights as a citizen is guaranteed to have by the constitution. The state must protect the individual exercising his right from groups that want to prevail”.
Poonawalla said that irrespective of ideological differences, people should stand for one another’s freedom of speech, particularly those “on the opposite side of the divide”.
He further said: “The courts must come down extremely hard on governments or police that try to restrict freedom of speech on vague grounds of criticism. Most importantly, the higher court should come down severely on lower courts that deny liberty and freedom of speech to fellow citizens who have been charged by governments, particularly for criticism and for jokes.”
Poonawalla said the mobs that “try to intimidate people to try make points should be dealt with firmly by the courts if the police do not protect those who are being attacked by the violent mobs”.
At the heart of this ongoing controversy is the question of how free speech is protected in a democracy. To truly safeguard free speech, a balance needs to be struck between artistic expression and political power — but the scales shouldn’t tip in favour of convenience or control. After all, democracy thrives on criticism, not censorship.
If artists are silenced for speaking against dispensation, even when their criticism is biased or politically influenced, it’s not just their voice that’s stifled but the very essence of democracy.
