Does Freedom of Speech and Expression include Right to remain silent under Article 19(1)(a)?

The recent development related to the freedom of speech and expression state that a person can express his views and the state can impose reasonable restriction on them in accordance with the Article 19(2). This reasonable restriction through judicial activism has been extended to causing noise pollution outside of bearable limits. But till date we do not have a certain answer to the question that “Whether Freedom of Speech and Expression also include right to remain Silent.”

The courts have debated time and again that freedom of speech also includes the right to remain silent. But the question which needs to be answered is that whether a person exercising his right would interfere with the right of others?  As per the courts the answer to the above question is that while enjoying his rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) a person must cause minimum inconvenience to others. A persons enjoyment of freedom of speech cannot be a reason to interfere with the fundamental rights and human rights of others.[1]

In K. Venu v. Director General of Police[2] , the Kerala high court was of the opinion that including right to use loudspeakers was not a fundamental right in itself as it’s an accepted fact that sound pollution is a danger to the society and it hampers others fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and unrestricted use of loudspeakers cannot be permitted.

Furthermore, in P. A. Jacob V Commissioner of Police, Emakulam[3] the Kerala high court while taking into account the problem of noise pollution expressed” Exposure to high noise is a known risk” and also observed “if an absolute right is granted on its behalf, it will be an unlimited charter for aural aggression”. “A right no matter how wide, can be allowed to destroy rights of others. The right to speech implies the right to silence. It implies freedom not to listen and also not to be forced to listen.”

The Calcutta high court while restricting the use of loudspeakers during the time of azan gave the reasoning that noise pollution can be termed as a valid reason for curtailing the fundamental right of speech and expression. Moreover the court also added that excessive noise certainly caused pollution in the society. On a plain reading of Article 19(1)(a) with Article 21 we can deduce that the citizens have a fundamental right to a healthy environment, right to decent sleep at night and to  live peacefully and also a right to leisure which forms all the necessary ingredients of Right ot life and personal liberty guaranteed.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Church of God v. K.K.R.M. Welfare Association[4]  held while deciding the question relating to the religious freedom held that religious freedom does not come into the picture as no religion requires its prayers to be offered through loud speakers or voice amplifiers.The Court gave out the guidelines for the government under the relavant rules of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which must be followed by the concerned authorites.[5] In Bijoe Emanuel v. State of Kerala,[6] the supreme court held that there is no provision in any law that mandates anyone to sing the National anthem if a person doesn’t want to sing, they also added that it’s not disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person stands up respectfully when the Anthem is being sung and does not join the singing. It may be noted that under Article 51-A(a) of the Indian Constitution it’s the duty of every “to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.” Respect can be shown to the National Anthem by standing up respectfully when the Anthem is being sung and it’s not right to say not singing the national anthem while standing respectfully will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem

---

[1] New Road Brothers v. Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, AIR 1999 Ker 262

[2] AIR 1990, Ker 344

[3] AIR 1993 Ker 1

[4] AIR 2000 SC 2773 : (2000) 7 SCC 282

[5] Om Biranguna Religious Society v. State of West Bengal, (1996)100 Cal WN 617

[6] (1986) 3 SCC 615 : AIR 1987 SC 748