Individual Liberty Cannot Be Misused In A Manner That Threatens Fabric Of Society By Attempting To Destabilise It,...
The principle that Individual Liberty cannot be misused to threaten the fabric of society or destabilize it, along with relevant Indian case laws illustrating this doctrine:
Conceptual Overview
Individual liberty is a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution, primarily under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 19 (freedom of speech, expression, assembly, etc.).
However, no right is absolute. The exercise of individual liberty is subject to reasonable restrictions:
To protect public order
To maintain the sovereignty and integrity of India
To safeguard morality, health, and decency
To prevent actions that threaten social harmony or the democratic fabric
If individual liberty is used to incite violence, spread hatred, or destabilize society, the State has the power and duty to intervene and restrict such actions.
Key Principles
Liberty is subject to reasonable restrictions:
Rights under Articles 19(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) can be curtailed in interest of public order, morality, security, etc.
Liberty cannot be a license to harm others:
Exercising liberty must not infringe on the rights of others or disturb public peace.
State’s duty to maintain public order:
The State can restrict liberty to protect society and prevent destabilization.
Important Case Laws
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) 1 SCR 865
Issue: Freedom of speech and expression.
Held: Freedom of speech is a fundamental right but subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and security.
Observation: Individual liberty must be balanced with society’s interest. It cannot be used to incite violence or disorder.
2. Madan Lal v. State of Punjab (1953) SCR 596
Held: The right to liberty and freedom does not give the right to disrupt public order or threaten the society’s peace.
The court said individual liberty should not be exercised in a manner that destroys the law and order.
3. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166
Held: The fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution can be subjected to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and safety.
The court held that liberty cannot be used to unravel social fabric.
4. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
While recognizing the right to personal liberty under Article 21, the Court emphasized that liberty is not absolute and may be curtailed for public good and social welfare.
5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 7 SCC 305
The Supreme Court observed that freedom of speech cannot be abused to cause public disorder or threaten social stability.
The court upheld restrictions on speech that promote enmity between groups or incite violence.
6. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 6 SCC 656
The court observed that freedom of assembly or speech cannot be misused for anti-national activities or to destabilize society.
Such liberties are subject to restrictions to preserve public order.
7. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Though this case struck down Section 66A of the IT Act (which was vague and violated free speech), the Court clarified that free speech has reasonable restrictions, including against speech that incites violence or public disorder.
Summary of the Doctrine
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Individual Liberty | Fundamental right under Articles 19 & 21 |
| Not Absolute | Subject to reasonable restrictions |
| Reasonable Restrictions | In interest of public order, morality, security |
| Misuse of Liberty | Actions like inciting violence, hatred, or rebellion |
| State’s Role | Maintain law and order, protect society |
| Judicial Principle | Liberty must be balanced against social stability |
Practical Examples
Freedom of speech does not protect hate speech that leads to riots.
Right to assemble cannot be used for unlawful protests that incite violence.
Personal liberty cannot justify unlawful activities like terrorism or sedition.
Conclusion
While individual liberty is sacrosanct, it cannot be exercised in a vacuum without regard to society's well-being. When liberty threatens to destabilize the fabric of society, it must be curtailed through lawful restrictions upheld by courts. This balance is essential for maintaining social harmony, security, and democratic governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments