While the freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed to every citizen of India under Article 19(1)(a), what use would it be in the event of there being none to listen, or read or receive what were to be freely said or expressed.
In one of the chapters of Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s book “From the Trenches” an interesting paragraph is worth reading and being shared. Extracting from a judgement of Justice Kuldeep Singh in Tata Press v. MTNL, Dr. Singhvi writes:
The other very interesting principle the Court relied on was that free speech is also a right embodied in the recipient or the audience of the speech. That is to say, not only is someone free to say what they want, but we all have a right to hear what is being said. The Court held:
“From the Trenches” By Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi (pg.30)
“Examined from another angle, the public at large has a right to receive the ‘Commercial speech’. Article 19(1)(a) not only guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it also protects the rights of an individual to listen, read and receive the said speech…”
Clause (a) of Article 19(1) very clearly vests every Indian citizen with the right to express freely, by words spoken or written, his thoughts and views. Of course, such right is subject to a power to regulate by imposing “reasonable” restrictions. The Supreme Court through its various judgements, has time and again confirmed and re-confirmed the right to express style, by words, spoken or written. However, in Tata Press supra, the Hon’ble Court, while expanding the scope of the right to speech and expression goes further to say that as the right to express freely is protected, such protection also enables to protect the rights of an individual to receive, read, hear and absorb the information or thoughts expressed, spoken or written.
Tata Press supra was necessarily relating to freedom of commercial speech, the ambit thus widened, could be meant to be understood in a manner as to promote unhindered, freedom of commercial expression. Necessarily, the generation in which Tata Press was decided (1995) was a different generation of commercial expression. It was all about print media. Media was yet to be exposed to digitalisation.
The “right to receive, read, hear and absorb” as was expressed then, to be an inherent right, directly related to the right to freely express commercial thoughts, views and ideas could now need to be revisited. A revisit not with a motive to curb the right to receive, but in fact, with safeguards to the right not to be “ambushed” into receiving. The right to privacy, which is a more fundamentally strong right, should be read into the right to receive, read and hear information commercially disseminated. Marketing is a commercial activity; marketing though could stand to be protected as a fundamental right to express freely, words spoken or written, clubbed with clause (g) of Article 19(1) “to carry on any occupation, trade or business”, yet, firstly ambushing a citizen’s privacy of information and secondly, creeping into his life through mobile, emails, reading into internet usage behaviour etc., is a very blatant violation of the fundamental right to privacy.
Can one fundamental right be allowed to trample upon another fundamental right?
It is difficult to comprehend whether Justice Kuldeep Singh would have viewed the then decided ratio of receiving speech, spoken or expressed, as being fundamental to a person differently in today’s times, but if the matter were to be revisited in the present circumstances, this right to commercial freedom would be worth a challenge to protect and prevent forced reception of words, views, thoughts, spoken or written.
