"The Ashok Udaykumar Deshmukh And Ors Versus The State Of Maharashtra Case: A Landmark In Defending Freedom Of Expression."

“The Ashok Udaykumar Deshmukh and ors Versus The State of Maharashtra Case: A Landmark in Defending Freedom of Expression.”

Introduction:-

Voltaire’s inspired assertion is that,

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The Indian constitution is secular in nature. By the 42nd constitutional amendment which added the word ‘secularism’ as the basic structure of the Indian constitution.

Secularism means not only to respect the religious feelings of others but also to protest the right of religious belief, practice, propagate and for promotion of any religion.

Secularism also abolished Hindu evil religious practices such as untouchability with the help of Article 17 of Indian constitution.

Secularism is also protects the religious minorities rights by promoting their education Ex. Aligarh Muslim University and JMI University. Jain, Sikh & Buddhist minorities rights are also protected. Even Where there is Hindu population less than others religion they get status of minority there by the Indian judiciary according to the Indian constitution.

Article 25 to 30 granted various religious rights and protection to the Indian citizen.

whether section 295A of IPC inconsistent with article 25 to 30 or secular basic structure of Indian constitution?

Article 19, 21 of the Indian constitution granted right to freedom of speech & expression, Right to life and personal liberty. These rights are fundamental in nature. But these rights are not absolute rights. Even religious also rights are not absolute rights. It means every right has a reginable restriction according to Rule of Law and the precedent of Indian judiciary established the constitutional spirit of rule of law in india. For example,

“Ashok Udaykumar Deshmukh and ors Versus The State of Maharashtra” in this case FIR was registered against the petitioners under section 295A of IPC therefore they approached the High Court under section 482 of Crpc for the quashing of FIR. In this case Hon’ble High Court held that comparison of lord parshuram with the actor name parshya marathi movie sairat is not the deliberate, malicious and intentional act of the petitioner to violate the religious feelings of the complainant. That petitioners also ask the complainant to rationally show the existence of the lord parshuram but the complainant fails to show the existence of the lord parshuram. It’s only a story in Puran. Therefore the court absorbed the reality of history and present rationalities of thinking.

It means Petitioner is also the Hindu’s rational thinking that the reality of the history of the caste system in India to promote one class as superior to others in the mythology story in Puran which violates the Principle of Equality between the castes.

The petitioners are of the same caste people. They also have the right of speech and expression, religious rights of practice, propagate and the question of the existence of, truthiness of religious heroes of their one caste.

In This case the petitioners uses their constitutional rights granted under article 14 and article 19. Petitioners have the right of personnel to check the historical reality of their one caste heroes.

One another case, for example, The Great Periyar E V Ramaswamy asked questions to God which Madras High Court held legitimate belief of him in the case of Dr.M.Deivanayagam vs The Chief Secretary.

In the case of State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalai Singh Yadav, The Hon’ble Apex Court acknowledged that ‘freedom of expression’ is an essential element for the development of the human community as well as the progress of the individual and society.

Conclusion:-

The Respected John Stuart Mill gives the most influential argument in favor of individual liberty in his book On Liberty that,

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Reference:-