Jantar Mantar is a public forum in democratic India where citizens gather to convey their views to the government and society. This place symbolizes the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. But when language is violated during protests, profanity is used as a tool of resistance, and obscenity is celebrated as a symbol of courage, it is natural to question: what are the limits of freedom of expression? Does protest in a democracy mean legitimizing all forms of language and behavior? Or does freedom also entail responsibility?

In recent days, the public use of highly offensive language by some protesters at Jantar Mantar became a topic of discussion. A segment of society appeared to support this, calling it a "rebellion against patriarchy" and "the voice of a fearless woman." On the other hand, many considered it a violation of social decorum, public decency, and constitutional responsibility. This debate is not about a single incident, but about the direction society is taking to redefine the boundaries of expression.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom of expression. However, the same Constitution, through Article 19(2), also makes it clear that this freedom is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on this freedom on grounds such as public order, decency, morality, defamation, contempt of court, and national security. Thus, the Constitution itself recognizes that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.
The right to protest is essential in any democracy. Criticism of the government, questioning policies, and dissent are the strengths of a democratic system. However, if the language of protest begins to promote hatred, obscenity, or violence in society, it cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of "free speech." The language used in public life also impacts society's culture and future generations.
It's also worth considering whether, if a man were to use similar language on a public platform, would society and the law react the same way as it would against a woman? If the answer is "no," it cannot be considered consistent with the principle of equality. Equal rights also imply equal responsibility. If the law takes action against obscene or offensive expressions made by men, the same standard should apply to women. Similarly, if inappropriate language against women is unacceptable, such language against men should not be normalized.
There is a concern in social discourse today that ideological commitments sometimes trump objectivity. If an event is evaluated based on a person's views, political leanings, or gender, both justice and equality are affected. Blind support for any side undermines democratic discourse. Practices and principles, not individuals, should be the basis for evaluation.
Patriarchy, gender inequality, and injustice against women are real social issues. Struggles against them are necessary. But if this struggle is conducted with dignity, logic, and constitutional propriety, its moral force is greater. Obscene language or abusive behavior cannot be justified simply because the objective is to oppose a system. The means are as important as the objective.
In the age of social media, inflammatory language instantly goes viral. This often creates the illusion that the more aggressive or controversial an expression is, the more effective it will be. However, the true beauty of democracy lies in the power of ideas, not the harshness of words. History shows that lasting change comes from reason, dialogue, and moral courage, not mere incitement.
All citizens are equal before the law. This is the fundamental spirit of the Indian Republic. Therefore, if obscene language, indecent exposure, or statements derogatory to any class in public places constitute crimes under the law, they should be assessed based on the individual's conduct, not their identity. Equality does not mean special privileges, but equal standards.
It is also essential that a clear social and legal understanding be developed between freedom of expression and hateful or obscene speech. Courts have repeatedly stated that while dissent is the foundation of democracy, such dissent cannot become a vehicle for violence, hatred, or violation of public decorum. Therefore, if there are ambiguities in the laws, they can be addressed through widespread public debate and necessary legal reforms to provide clear guidance to citizens.
Society too must introspect. Do we want to teach our children that courage means abandoning decorum? Does boldness mean abolishing the dignity of language? Or is true courage the ability to express one's views with restraint, clarity, and firmness, even in the face of harsh circumstances?
In a democracy, dissent must be respected, but the dignity of public life is equally essential. If we talk about equality, we must also accept equal responsibility. The law should be applied according to a person's actions, not their gender, ideology, or social identity. This is the spirit of the Constitution and the basis of justice.
Ultimately, the question isn't just about a single incident at Jantar Mantar. The question is what kind of public culture we want to create in the future India. An India where expression is free but also responsible; where dissent is fearless but also modest; and where equality means equal rights and equal responsibilities for all. This is the maturity of democracy and the true spirit of the Constitution.

Email:-----------------------saurabhpari333@gmail.com