India’s Supreme Court has struck down vague laws and affirmed digital speech as a protected constitutional right.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN INDIA
Gist
|
Overview
Whether it’s a viral meme, a speech, or a critical op-ed, if it doesn’t incite violence, it’s protected. From Shreya Singhal to Maneka Gandhi, landmark rulings have made one thing clear: Free speech is not optional, it’s fundamental.
Landmark Judgements
- Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, ruling that vague and arbitrary internet censorship violates Article 19(1)(a). This case became the cornerstone for protecting online speech memes, tweets, opinions, and digital dissent. - Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)
Expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights — including free speech — by introducing the “due process” doctrine. SC ensured that any restriction on speech must be fair, just, and not arbitrary. - Vinod Dua vs. Union of India (2021)
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against journalist Vinod Dua, emphasizing that mere criticism of the government does not constitute sedition. - Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs. Union of India (2014)
The Court addressed the issue of hate speech, highlighting the need for effective enforcement of existing laws rather than creating new guidelines. - Faheema Shirin R.K. vs. State of Kerala (2019)
The Kerala High Court recognized access to the internet as a fundamental right, linking it to the rights to education and privacy.
Legal Aspects
Freedom of speech faces new challenges but remains a fundamental right protected by law. Key points to remember:
- Article 19(1)(a) protects all forms of expression, including digital content.
- Restrictions under Article 19(2) must be reasonable and only imposed for specific grounds like public order, decency, or defamation.
- Mere criticism of the government is protected and not sedition.
- Vague laws curbing online speech are unconstitutional.
- Defamation laws limit speech but cannot be used to silence legitimate opinions.
- Digital regulations aim to balance free speech with preventing harm but must not stifle dissent.
Freedom of speech protects all forms of expression but comes with clear, limited restrictions to balance rights and public order.
- Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India – Covers all expression: speech, writing, online posts, memes.
- Article 19(2), Constitution of India – Restrictions allowed only for public order, decency, defamation, etc.
- Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 597 – Restrictions must be reasonable and not vague.
- Earlier: Section 124A IPC, Now: Section 152 of BNS; Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 – Criticizing the government is allowed; sedition means inciting violence.
- Anuradha Bhasin vs. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637- Online speech has same protection as offline.
- Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 – Vague laws like Section 66A are unconstitutional.
- Earlier: Sections 499 & 500 IPC, Now: Section 356 of BNS; Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 – Defamation limits speech but can’t silence honest opinions.
- Earlier: Section 153A IPC, Now: Section 196 of BNS – Hate speech can be limited to keep peace.
- IT Rules, 2021; intermediary liability under Section 79 IT Act – Social media platforms must follow rules but can’t censor freely.
Key Aspects of Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech protects all forms of expression but comes with clear, limited restrictions to balance rights and public order.
- Covers all expression: speech, writing, online posts, memes.
- Restrictions allowed only for public order, decency, defamation, etc.
- Restrictions must be reasonable and not vague.
- Criticizing the government is allowed; sedition means inciting violence.
- Online speech has same protection as offline.
- Vague laws like Section 66A are unconstitutional.
- Defamation limits speech but can’t silence honest opinions.
- Hate speech can be limited to keep peace.
- Social media platforms must follow rules but can’t censor freely.
Impact
As freedom of speech evolves in today’s digital world, it’s crucial to understand its real-world effects and the legal balance that protects it.
- Freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy and social progress.
- It enables citizens to question authority and share ideas freely.
- Unrestricted speech can sometimes threaten public order and individual rights.
- Legal restrictions balance protecting society without stifling expression.
- Digital platforms have made enforcement complex but courts protect online speech equally.
- Vigilant protection of free speech ensures a healthy democratic space.
Conclusion
Freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is fundamental but not absolute. Reasonable and clear restrictions are necessary to maintain public order and protect individual reputation. Courts have consistently upheld the delicate balance between free expression and societal interests, ensuring that democratic values are preserved. Vague or overly broad laws curbing speech are struck down to protect constitutional rights. Importantly, digital speech is entitled to the same safeguards as offline expression. Continuous vigilance remains essential to prevent the misuse of laws that could stifle legitimate dissent and free expression.
“When expression is treated like a crime, silence becomes the price of survival — and that’s not democracy, that’s control.”
Sources:
Also Read: DEMOCRACY DIES IN SILENCE: SHARMISTHA PANOLI EMERGES AS ITS LATEST VICTIM
WRITTEN BY – SHRAVANI SRINVAS
EDITED BY: NANCY SHARMA
