Laxman Rekha Shouldn’t Be Crossed In Name Of Freedom Of Expression: HP HC
The HP High Court’s observation “Laxman Rekha Shouldn’t Be Crossed in the Name of Freedom of Expression”
Overview
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while dealing with cases concerning freedom of expression, emphasized that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute.
The court used the metaphor of “Laxman Rekha” from Indian mythology:
Just like Laxman drew a line that shouldn’t be crossed, freedom of expression also has limits.
Crossing this line—such as spreading hate speech, defamation, communal tension, or obscene content—can attract legal consequences.
Key Principles Highlighted by HP High Court
Freedom Comes with Responsibility
Citizens have the right to express their views online or offline, but it must not harm others or disrupt public order.
The court stressed that social media platforms or public statements can be used responsibly to share opinions without causing injury or offense.
Legal Boundaries of Expression
Expressions that incite violence, offend religious sentiments, or threaten national security fall outside the ambit of Article 19(1)(a).
The court referred to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which allow the government to regulate speech for:
Public order
Morality
Defamation
Balance Between Rights and Responsibilities
Freedom of speech is essential in a democracy, but crossing the “Laxman Rekha” can lead to criminal liability under IPC or IT Act provisions.
Case Context and Example
While the observation was made in a recent PIL concerning social media misuse, the court stated:
“Freedom of expression cannot be a shield to spread falsehood, abuse, or provocative messages. One must respect the ‘Laxman Rekha’ of law and ethics.”
Illustrative Example:
If someone posts a message online falsely accusing a community of crimes, it may:
Incite hatred or violence (violation of public order)
Attract legal action under IPC Sections 153A (promoting enmity) or 295A (offending religious feelings)
Lead to consequences under IT Act Section 66A (if it existed) or similar provisions for online abuse
The court’s message is clear: democracy thrives on free speech, but responsibility is inseparable from rights.
Conclusion
The HP High Court’s “Laxman Rekha” observation reinforces that:
Freedom of expression is vital, but it has reasonable limits.
Crossing these limits—by spreading hatred, obscenity, or falsehood—cannot be justified in the name of free speech.
Citizens must exercise their rights within ethical and legal boundaries, ensuring public peace and harmony.
RELATED Blog
0 comments