Is the freedom of expression an absolute right?

'All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression'. So states Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. However, states the same Article, 'reasonable restrictions' can be imposed on the right in the interest of the 'sovereignty and integrity of India', 'friendly relations with foreign States', 'public order', 'decency or morality', 'contempt of court', 'defamation', or 'incitement of an offence'. It, thus, follows that the freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right, at least not according to the Constitution.

The 'right to freedom of expression' has also been enshrined, again in Article 19, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) on December 16, 1966 - to which the Republic of India acceded on April 10, 1979. However, even in the ICCPR, echoing the Constitution, the same Article states that this right may be 'subject to certain restrictions', namely the 'respect of the rights or reputations of others', the 'protection of national security', 'public order', or 'public health or morals'. It would thus follow, yet again, that the freedom of expression is not an absolute right, not even according to the ICCPR.

However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - adopted by the General Assembly of the UN on December 10, 1948 - appears to be different. Like the Constitution and the ICCPR, it has also enshrined the 'right to freedom of expression' - in Article 19 too, but unlike the earlier documents, it places no apparent restrictions on the exercise of that right. Does it, then, follow that the freedom of expression has finally been revealed as an absolute right and that too, by the UDHR, no less?

To answer this question and to illustrate that answer, this article would like to use the case study of an Op-Ed, entitled How to wipe out Islamic terror?, written by Dr. Subramanian Swamy and published in Daily News and Analysis on July 16, 2011. This case study has been chosen because it had once been in the news as the reason for the removal of two courses on Economics that Dr. Swamy teaches at the three-month Summer School session in Harvard University.

In it, he advocates, among others, the following 'strategy' 'to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India': 'remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites' and 'enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion...declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus'.

While the call to 'remove' masjids may be an exercise in the 'right to freedom of expression', it also violates Article 17(2) of the UDHR, i.e. 'no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property'. The call to prohibit conversion from Hinduism and disenfranchisement of all non-Hindus who do not 'proudly acknowledge' their Hindu ancestry does one better, for it not only violates Article 18 - right to 'freedom to change his religion', but also violates Article 2 - right to equality - and Article 21 - right to 'universal and equal suffrage', at the very least. Finally, this 'strategy', in toto, violates Article 30 of the UDHR, which states that nothing in the Declaration may be interpreted 'to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein'.

One is bound to conclude, therefore, that the right to freedom of expression is not and has never been absolute. In fact, it ceases to be free if exercised in violation of other fundamental human rights.