(General Studies IV – Moral Thinkers and Philosophers from World – Contributions of moral thinkers and philosophers from India and the world, Philosophical basis of governance and probity)
- John Stuart Mill’s work On Liberty (1859) forms the foundation of libertarianism, emphasizing individual freedom while limiting state intervention. Mill advocated for maximum liberty unless it causes harm to others, proposing the “Harm Principle.” His ideas significantly impact modern debates on liberty, freedom of speech, and governance.
- In India, while free speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable restrictions to prevent hate speech and maintain public order.
The Harm Principle –
- The state or society has the right to intervene only when an individual’s actions cause harm to others.
- Self-Regarding vs. Other-Regarding Actions: Self-Regarding actions affecting only the individual e.g., personal lifestyle choices, should not be restricted.
- Other-regarding actions affecting others e.g., physical harm, public safety issues, warrant state or societal intervention.
- In Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India, Mill’s harm principle was cited when the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality, stating that it doesn’t harm others.
Free Speech and Expression –
- Mill advocated for complete freedom of thought and speech, asserting that even false opinions benefit society by challenging existing beliefs.
- False beliefs allow for the strengthening of truth by debate and discussion, enriching public discourse.
- Mill’s theory supports allowing diverse opinions in governance discussions, as it promotes transparent and healthy debate, essential for policy formulation.
Limits to Free Speech –
While free speech is critical, Mill acknowledges that speech can be limited if it incites harm.
- Mill cites that an opinion critical of corn dealers should not be restricted unless it is delivered to an angry mob that could incite violence.
- Mill’s harm principle applies to hate speech regulation. For example, referring to a community with derogatory terms e.g., “Miya Muslims” can incite hostility and harm, justifying legal restrictions.
State and Societal Intervention –
- Mill distinguished between state and societal control.
- Society can respond to other-regarding actions that do not violate legal rights e.g., ostracism.
- State intervenes when legal rights are violated e.g., punishment for physical harm.
- Mill’s principle encourages minimal state interference in citizens’ lives, aligning with good governance models that balance individual rights and social order.
Today, it’s difficult to constitute the definition of harm as modern discussions about disinformation and hate speech explore non-physical harm e.g., psychological or emotional impact. Governments need to balance free speech with public safety, ensuring that harmful rhetoric doesn’t incite violence or discrimination.
John Stuart Mill’s Theory of Liberty advocates for minimal state intervention and maximum individual freedom, grounded in the harm principle. However, when personal freedoms infringe on the rights or well-being of others, both societal and state mechanisms must intervene. His ideas remain relevant in public administration and law, influencing discussions on freedom of speech, disinformation, and hate speech.
