Article 19 1 of the Indian constitution talks about the freedom of speech and Expression. Freedom of Speech and expression means the right to be vocal, and the right to assert what one feels without feeling restricted. Every citizen has the right to have an opinion and to adhere to what he/she feels freely without having an unwarranted dominance of thought. Freedom of Speech and Expression does not only restrict its ambit here as it also includes the right to have an idea and to make the people aware about their thought process. The doctrine behind this right is to secure the people from feeling restricted to express anything that they feel without anyone’s obligation. Through Article 19(1)(A) of the Bharatiya Constitution, all the citizens are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to express their opinions and their views verbally allowing them to express it all through any communicable medium.

INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS AND SIMILAR CASE LAWS

When it comes to setting the parameters of reasonable limits and interpreting Article 19(1)(a), Indian courts have been instrumental. The boundaries of India’s freedom of speech and expression have been defined by a number of significant rulings.

In one of the first instances pertaining to freedom of expression,
2 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to free speech is crucial to democracy and needs to be vigorously upheld. The court ruled that a state-imposed restriction on a journal was unconstitutional, highlighting the importance of free speech in a functioning democracy.

3 Union of India v. Sakal Papers Ltd. (1962): A government rule that limited newspaper circulation was overturned by the Supreme Court, which held that any interference with press freedom is unacceptable, didn’t follow Article 19(1)(a). This ruling emphasized how crucial an independent press is to a democracy.

4 Union of India v. Bennett Coleman & Co. (1972): The court upheld press freedom in this case, declaring that the government’s limitations on newspaper page counts and prices were unconstitutional. According to the court, press freedom is an extension of speech freedom and is essential for molding public opinion and spreading information.

5 Union of India v. Shreya Singhal (2015): The Information Technology Act’s Section 66A, which made “offensive” internet content illegal, was contested in this historic case. The Supreme Court declared the clause to be illegal, citing a violation of the right to free speech and expression. This ruling established a standard for safeguarding internet speech and restricted the power of the government to censor expression on the internet.

6 Union of India v. Subramanian Swamy (2016): The Supreme Court ruled that reputation is a crucial component of personal dignity in this instance, upholding the validity of criminal defamation. The court affirmed that appropriate restrictions can coexist with free expression by striking a balance between people’s right to free speech and their right to reputation protection.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS

The Indian Constitutions Article 19(1)(a) protects the right to free speech and expression. This right encompasses the freedom to use any medium- spoken or written or digital to communicate one’s ideas, opinions and thoughts. It includes both individual and communal expression such as communal assembly, publication and information access.
The state may however, place “reasonable restrictions” on this freedom under article 19(2) for the sake of public order, integrity, security, and sovereignty as well as morality, decency, and the avoidance of encouragement to crime, defamation, and the contempt of court. The word “reasonable” suggests that limitations should be appropriate and required to accomplish justifiable objectives rather than being capricious overly harsh.

IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

7 Indian Sovereignty and Integrity: The state has the authority to censor speech that jeopardizes the country’s sovereignty or integrity. The goal is to stop seditious or separatist actions that would jeopardize national unity. Though its application has been contentious and has been under court examination, the Sedition Law, which is found in Section 251A of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), makes speech that incites violence or disaffection against the state illegal.

State security: Restrictions can be placed on any speech or expression that poses a threat to national security, such as encouraging espionage or rebellion. In a nation that has experienced both internal and external threats, such as insurgencies and cross-border terrorism, this clause is essential.

Public Order: Speech that could disturb the peace may be restricted by the state. In a multicultural country like India, where tensions between communities can swiftly worsen, this is particularly crucial. Examples of legal prohibitions based on this principle are Section 298 of the BNS, which punishes acts intended to incite religious feelings, and Section 192 of the BNS, which penalizes speech that fosters animosity between various groups.

8 Decency and Morality: Speech that transgresses social standards of decency and morality may be restricted by the state. In order to preserve social values and stop exploitation, this ban applies to pornography and obscenity. While the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the regulation of internet content, Section 294 of the BNS deals with the sale and distribution of pornographic material.

Court contempt: To protect judicial integrity, speech that compromises the court’s authority or impartiality may be prohibited. The 1971 Contempt of Courts Act gives judges the authority to punish behavior that could impede the administration of justice, such as tarnishing the court’s reputation or jeopardizing ongoing legal proceedings.

Incitement to an Offense: Speech that encourages violence or criminal activity may be prohibited. In order to stop riots, hate crimes, and other violent incidents that could disturb social order, this clause is crucial.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN DIGITAL ERA

9 Free Expression in India has changed as a result of the digital revolution, presenting both benefits and difficulties. The internet democratizes information exchange and gives a forum to a range of viewpoints. Citizen journalism has been boosted by social media which enables people to cover topics that the media might miss. But there are drawbacks to the digital age as well, such as the proliferation of extreme ideas, fake news and cyberbullying. Governments cross the world are struggling with how to control internet material without restricting free expression. In an effort to address these concerns, the Information Technology Act and its follow up regulations have drawn criticism for possibly going too far and restricting internet speech.

The most landmark judgement in this aspect would be Union of India v. Shreya Singhal (2015)

HAVING TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN FREEDOM AND RESTRICTIONS

The delicate balancing act between acceptable limits and freedom of expression has grown more difficult in recent years, especially with the introduction of digital media and the internet. Although social media platforms have made it possible for people to voice their opinions in a way never before possible, they have also sparked worries about hate speech, disinformation, and online abuse. 10 In order to control online content, the government has responded by enacting laws and regulations, such as the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

However, discussions over privacy, censorship, and the right to knowledge have been triggered by these restrictions. Critics contend that some clauses, such as removal orders and traceability requirements, may impede free expression and result in widespread surveillance. In contrast, proponents assert that regulations are required to stop hate crimes, cyberbullying, and fake news. Union of India v. Subramanian Swamy (2016) clearly explains us this aspect of balance clearly .

ROLE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

A key component of democratic administration is the freedom of speech and expression. It makes it possible for the people to engage in decision making, challenge authority and criticize policies. In order to expose corruption, hold politicians responsible and keep the public informed of government acts, the press is essential.

11 Freedom of press is essential for civil society organizations and activists to promote human rights and social change. Freedom of expression has been used by movements like the Right to Information and anti corruption campaigns to resolve public complaints and increased openness. Freedom of expression has also enabled underrepresented groups to speak up and fight for equal rights in recent years, promoting inclusivity and social justice.

CONCLUSION

People can express their opinions, challenge authority, and push for social change because to the fundamental right to free speech and expression, which preserves democracy. This right is granted in India under Article 19(1)(a), but with appropriate limitations to protect individual dignity, national security, and public order.

12 Maintaining a careful balance between freedom and limitations is difficult, particularly in the digital age when information travels quickly and widely. In reaction to societal demands and advances in technology, judicial interpretations of this fundamental right are constantly changing. Freedom of speech must be safeguarded while making sure it doesn’t turn into a weapon for damage or disturbance as India forges ahead as a thriving democracy. Reaching this equilibrium will support the country’s democratic values and cultivate a culture that appreciates both individual freedom and group accountability.

REFERENCES

1. Article 19 in Constitution of India
2. Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950
3. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India on 25 September, 1961
4. Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 October, 1972
5. Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015
6. Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India, Min. Of Law. on 13 May, 2016
7. A Bird’s Eye View of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression in India
8. Freedom of speech – Wikipedia
9. Freedom of Speech in the digital Era – Legally Flawless
10. NAVIGATING THE DIGITAL MAZE: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN INDIA’S DIGITAL DEMOCRACY
11. Freedom of speech and expression in the digital era – iPleaders
12. Article 19 in Constitution of India

 

ARTICLE BY-

YASHVI CALLA