I completely agree with your views Sir. However, freedom of speech will always remain a subjective view and those who can afford will always tangle others in litigations, and courts will take their own subjective views. View taken by SC, to rescue Rahul Gandhi seems an illogical excuse purposely used under the influence of big lawyers, only to save a "big personality". Quoting Mulla, decision of SC is not final because it is correct, but it correct because it is final.
My view is that those in public life, whether actors, journalists, those running large companies, politicians, religious personalities, and even corporate managers with 2-3 people working under them, should have no protection from criticism or so-called defamation.
"Freedom of speech is nothing without freedom to offend", says Salman Rushdie.
I completely agree with your views Sir. However, freedom of speech will always remain a subjective view and those who can afford will always tangle others in litigations, and courts will take their own subjective views. View taken by SC, to rescue Rahul Gandhi seems an illogical excuse purposely used under the influence of big lawyers, only to save a "big personality". Quoting Mulla, decision of SC is not final because it is correct, but it correct because it is final.
My view is that those in public life, whether actors, journalists, those running large companies, politicians, religious personalities, and even corporate managers with 2-3 people working under them, should have no protection from criticism or so-called defamation.
"Freedom of speech is nothing without freedom to offend", says Salman Rushdie.