Answer: 

Introduction:

Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It empowers every citizen to freely voice their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs without fear of reprisal, censorship, or legal sanction. It allows for the free exchange of ideas, fosters creativity, and is critical for the healthy functioning of a democratic society.

Body:

However, like all rights, freedom of speech is not absolute.

• It is subject to certain restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. These restrictions are outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• In the context of hate speech, it’s important to note that the Indian legal framework does not explicitly define “hate speech.” However, it has been addressed in various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505.
• These provisions criminalize any speech, words, signs, or visible representation that can incite hatred or cause harm based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community. Therefore, while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, hate speech, as generally understood, is not protected under it due to its potential to disrupt public order and incite violence.

Turning to the issue of films, they indeed occupy a unique space within the sphere of free speech in India.

• Despite being a form of artistic expression, films are subject to pre-censorship in India under the Cinematograph Act of 1952, which established the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
• This is different from other forms of artistic expression, such as books or paintings, which are not subject to such prior restraint.

Several reasons contribute to this differential treatment:

• Wide Reach and Influence: Films have a wide reach and can influence a large number of people, including those considered more impressionable, such as children and young adults.
• Medium’s Characteristics: The audio-visual nature of films can have a profound impact and can stir emotions more easily than other forms of media.
• Historical Precedent: India’s history of communal violence has led to a cautious approach towards any medium that has the potential to incite violence or disrupt public order, which includes films.

A recent example of these tensions was seen in the controversy over the movie “Padmaavat” in 2018.

• Despite clearance from the CBFC, the film faced violent protests from certain groups who believed it misrepresented history and hurt their sentiments.
• The Supreme Court of India upheld the film’s right to release, reaffirming the freedom of speech and expression.
• However, the controversy highlighted the complex interplay between freedom of expression, public sentiment, and the fear of public disorder in India.

Conclusion:

To maintain democratic values and social harmony, a constant reassessment of the balance between free speech and its misuse is essential. This requires clearer legal definitions, especially for hate speech, a nuanced approach to film censorship, and increased public awareness about responsible speech. The ultimate goal is to uphold free expression while preventing societal harm.