Free speech

  In  Subramanian   Swamy  (Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India, Min. Of Law. on 13 May, 2016),  the   right   to   freedom   of speech of an individual guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) qua the   right   to   dignity   and   reputation   of   another   individual guaranteed under Article 21 were the competing rights. In this case, the Court held as follows:  65 “98. Freedom of speech and expression in a spirited democracy   is   a   highly   treasured   value.   Authors, philosophers   and   thinkers   have   considered   it   as   a prized   asset   to   the   individuality   and   overall progression   of   a   thinking   society,   as   it   permits argument, allows dissent to have a respectable place, and honours contrary stances. There are proponents who have set it on a higher pedestal than life and not hesitated to barter death for it. Some have condemned compelled   silence   to   ruthless   treatment.   William Dougles has denounced regulation of free speech like regulating   diseased   cattle   and   impure   butter.   The Court has in many an authority having realised its precious nature and seemly glorified sanctity has put it in a meticulously structured pyramid. Freedom of speech is treated as the thought of the freest who has not mortgaged his ideas, may be wild, to the artificially cultivated social norms; and transgression thereof is not   perceived   as   a   folly.   Needless   to   emphasise, freedom of speech has to be allowed specious castle, but   the   question   is:   should   it   be   so   specious   or regarded   as   so   righteous   that   it   would   make reputation   of   another   individual   or   a   group   or   a collection of persons absolutely ephemeral, so as to hold   that   criminal   prosecution   on   account   of defamation negates and violates right to free speech and expression of opinion…”