FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION AND ITS REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS

AUTHOR- ASTHA SRIVASTAVA, MAA VAISHNO DEVI EDUCATIONAL LAW COLLEGE AFFLIATED TO UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW.

The foundation of a democratic society relies on freedom of speech and expression, which enables citizens to articulate their ideas, disseminate information and participate actively in public discourse. The Indian Constitution protects this essential right through Article 19(1)(a). According to Article 19(2), the freedom of speech and expression can be limited to keep the nation’s sovereignty and maintain order. This paper studies the constitution and the law on free speech in India and looks at how the courts have viewed and adjusted this freedom over different periods. Both the regulations on free speech and the influence of social media and online false news are reviewed in this paper. It outlines, using referred laws, how balance must be achieved between the interests of the individuals and the community for democratic principles to stay intact.

KEYWORDS

Freedom of speech and expression, reasonable restrictions, Constitution of India, Democracy, Digital age.

A strong democracy depends greatly on having free speech and expression. This principle helps people share their views and thoughts without a lot of restrictions. The Indian Constitution includes Article 19(1)(a) to support the right of every citizen to express what they believe and think. Nonetheless, there are restrictions on how much freedom one has. Article 19(2) makes it possible for the government to limit expression if necessary to keep public safety, national security, morality and the nation’s sovereignty. This is the basic right of all citizens to connect with the government and challenge the structures in place in a democratic system. This means individuals can voice their thoughts through speech, writing, drawings or online ways.

Historical Background of Freedom of Speech and Expression

Free speech and expression have a deep and extended history behind them. Leading ways in which free speech has been recognized include the English Bill of Rights from 1689 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen from 1789. Article 11 specifies: The right of individuals to exchange ideas freely is very important for people. The right of expression through speech and writing applies to everyone and this covers publishing materials as well, but there are consequences for violating those rights according to the law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) makes this principle stronger.

The Constitution of India gives all citizens the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, as stated by Article 19(1)(a). The first part of the Constitution, called the Preamble, mentions the significance of freedom to think and express opinions. Article 19(2) says that freedom of expression may be restricted in certain cases for the sake of sovereignty, public order and decency. When people can share their thoughts and information freely, freedom of expression works at its best. Being able to challenge the government and its choices helps citizens to expect respect from their leaders and fortify the solidity of democracy.

All citizens in India are given the basic right to express their thoughts freely by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Thanks to this right, people can voice their opinions and ideas in several ways like speaking, writing, using images and using electronic tools. It covers the ability to access information and discuss it which forms the main support for taking part in democracy.

It makes sure that: 

1.People can express what they believe, regardless if it is in public or private.

2.Since the freedom of the press exists, media organizations can provide information freely while maintaining ethical rules in journalism.

3.Access to information lets citizens decide things wisely.

4.People are allowed to simply stay quiet, so no one can force them to say something about which they do not agree.

Aspects Included under Article 19(1)(a): 

a) Freedom of the Press 

b) Freedom of Commercial Speech 

c) Right to Broadcast 

d) Right to Information 

e) Right to Criticize Policies and Authorities 

f) Right to Expression Beyond National Boundaries 

g) Right to Silence (Not to Speak) 

This right involves several elements although it is still limited in some ways. The government holds the power to enforce reasonable limitations under Article 19(2) in order to protect specific interests.

a) Sovereignty and integrity of India 

b) Security of the state 

c) Public order 

d) Decency or morality 

e) Contempt of court 

f) Defamation 

g) Incitement to an offence 

h) Friendly relations with foreign states 

The Supreme Court of India has expanded its interpretation of this right to include activities such as:

a) Participating in sports 

b) Hoisting the national flag 

c) Expressing oneself through social media 

The law permits restrictions on hate speech and defamatory statements as well as obscene content and any material that breaks court orders since these are not protected expressions.

Scope of Freedom of Speech and Expression - Article 19(1)(a)

According to Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, every citizen holds the right to freely express thoughts and opinions. The freedom encompasses expression through multiple channels, including spoken and written words as well as images, gestures, signs, and other methods of communication. The freedom of the press stands as an essential element of this right because it enables the distribution and sharing of information and ideas. Information circulation holds equal importance to its publication because content becomes meaningless without its distribution. These rights let individuals share their opinions and also help them promote and publish other people’s ideas. It is essential in real press freedom since it forms a basic part of democracy.

Reasonable Restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution explains that speech and expression can be restrained in reasonable circumstances. The Supreme Court in India states that for a restriction to be valid under the constitution, it must satisfy certain important criteria. These features are: 

1.Restrictions must be guided by laws instead of executive orders or orders from administrators.

2. According to Article 19(2), a restriction can only be made for public order or morality reasons, as these are allowed legitimate purposes.

3. Any limit on speech needs to be both sensible and fitting with the situation.

4. The purpose of laws is to be easy to understand and straightforward.

5. Any rule that hinders people in democratic societies must not stop them from criticizing or expressing different views peacefully.

Security of the State

Some limits on freedom of speech and expression can be used to defend the state’s security. State security and public order should be clearly understood as different duties. Local disturbances and threats to peace are part of public order and state security focuses on more severe and general threats. Such threats as insurrection, rebellion and armed insurgency may pose dangers to the state’s security because they can weaken the nation or its neighboring areas. This ground involves restrictions on things people say that could cause or support huge disruptions.

Friendly ties with foreign states

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 expanded the conditions under which reasonable limitations could be placed on the freedom of speech and expression. The preservation of amicable connections between nations serves as one valid ground for restricting freedom of speech. The governmental authority is permitted to limit speech or expression when such actions threaten India’s diplomatic ties or risk damaging its international relationships.

Public order

Public order describes a situation characterized by peacefulness, safety, and societal harmony. Acts that interfere with this peaceful condition break public order regulations. The court ruled in Om Prakash v. Emperor (AIR 1948 Nag 199) that any disturbance to public tranquility constitutes a violation of public peace. Simple government criticism cannot be automatically considered a public order disruption. The courts have upheld laws that penalize intentional offensive remarks against religious groups as reasonable constitutional restrictions meant to preserve public order.

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 introduced public order as a restriction basis for Article 19(2) after the Supreme Court in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras determined free expression limits must directly concern public order rather than just law and order or national security.

The grounds for restricting free speech include public order as well as both decency and morality. Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) make it illegal to sell, distribute or publicly show obscene materials. These legal provisions demonstrate society's effort to preserve moral and decency standards while acknowledging that such standards evolve with changing social values over time.

Contempt of court

Free speech as a basic right does not cover activities that are contemptuous of the court. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 makes it clear that “contempt of court” applies both to civil contempt and criminal contempt. If someone intentionally does not obey a court order, it is called civil contempt, while criminal contempt applies to actions that harm the court’s name or stop it from functioning properly. This rule lets courts preserve their position and respect while ensuring no party receives unfair treatment in a court case.

Defamation

Article 19(2) in the Indian Constitution restricts the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression when it deals with defamation cases. According to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, defamation is an offense that harms a person’s reputation. There are limits on free expression such as not harming someone’s reputation, in order to protect them. Essentially, Article 21 protects your reputation because it ensures that your dignity is protected.

While truth can be part of a defamation case, its value is not always acknowledged. A valid defense in a case requires that the statement helps the public. The court needs to check if a confession matches the truth using real evidence.

Incitement to commit an offense

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 established that incitement to commit a crime serves as a legitimate reason to limit freedom of speech and expression. This provision forbids people from making remarks that prompt others to commit crimes. The limitation aims to forbid speech that could provoke illegal activities while maintaining public order and safety.

Indian sovereignty and integrity

The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act of 1963 introduced this legal ground. The amendment prohibits individuals from making statements that threaten India's national integrity and sovereignty. The provision restricts freedom of speech by prohibiting expressions that threaten national unity and territorial integrity.

Why is Freedom of Speech and Expression Not Absolute? 

Freedom of speech and expression stands as a fundamental right protected by constitutional frameworks, which serves as a foundational element of democracy by allowing people to express their views and participate in open discussions. These rights experience legal boundaries and restrictions that limit its scope. The right to free speech needs to be weighed against other vital interests like privacy rights and public safety. People cannot say whatever they choose if it means spreading false information and causing violence, using personal attributes unlawfully or exploiting celebrity traits. These sectors are guarded by law to stop their unauthorized abuse.

Thanks to digital technology, changes in free speech came about mostly on social media platforms. Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp have made it possible for people to exchange information rapidly. Still, this has led to new difficulties. Platforms on social media make it possible for different views to be shared, but such sites also endanger privacy and result in dangerous speech and fake information.

Spreading fake news is an important challenge when we talk about free speech. The rapid expansion of digital communication makes it possible for misinformation to reach people very quickly, causing threats to social well-being, health and security. False news about where COVID-19 started, how it should be treated and the vaccines sparked a lot of confusion which in turn led to violence during the pandemic.

Legal experts are currently trying to find ways to regulate social media without violating peoples’ freedom of speech. Therefore, the Indian government created the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to deal with online content. Issues are arising due to these new laws since they could put limits on free speech and lawful protest.

A fundamental part of democracy is allowing everyone to express their opinions which supports open dialogue, more active politics and changes in the community. In major cases, the Indian judiciary has broadened the meaning of fundamental rights and kept a balance between what individuals can do and what is expected from society’s side.

Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950)

Because of this decision, free speech rights would often be construed in a broad manner. The story started when the government prevented the publication of Cross Roads due to its tough approach to government policies. The top court decided that the freedom of speech and expression belongs to individuals and is vital for the protection of democracy. It pointed out that: Speech and expression liberties ensure people have the right to express what the majority thinks as well as what only a few people agree with. The court ensured that dissent plays a key role in the right to free expression.

K.K. The 1951 Verma v. Union of India case established the concept of hate speech within legal frameworks.

Speech that incites hatred and violence was judged by the court, even though it was understood that managing speech can be important for public safety and the country’s security.

The decision proved that the judiciary aimed to keep speeches from causing tension in the community. The enactment of hate speech rules inspired talks on how to stop offensive speech without touching the important right of free dissent.

The 1972 case Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India explored the boundaries of press freedom and censorship. 

The Court recognized press freedom as essential to free speech by rejecting government restrictions on newspaper distribution that aimed to protect national economic stability. The court concluded that these rules went against free speech and highlighted the major contribution of freedom of the press to our democracy.  The Court accepted that restrictions may be appropriate if they are specifically designed to protect national security as well as sovereignty and public order.Subsequent cases related to censorship, sedition, and defamation were greatly influenced by this ruling which established a critical legal precedent.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

In this fundamental ruling which established the basic structure doctrine the court underscored the critical role fundamental rights such as free speech play in maintaining India's democratic system.The Court declared that the principle of free speech stands as a fundamental pillar of democracy and any attempt to suppress it would contravene the constitutional vision.Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

Indian democracy considers freedom of speech and expression as its most vital right because it serves as the foundation for democratic involvement and social advancement. The Indian Constitution's Article 19(1)(a) establishes the right for individuals to express their opinions, beliefs and critiques freely as a foundational element for a dynamic society. The Constitution acknowledges that the right to free expression carries certain restrictions.Article 19(2) provides for limitations on freedom of speech when national security needs to be protected or public order maintained or when safeguarding the rights of others while ensuring individual expression does not threaten state stability, safety, or integrity. Its aim is to keep people peaceful and protected for the community’s welfare.

Because information can be shared online very quickly, free speech rights encounter new problems in our time. Because of sites like social media platforms, blogs and forums, getting information and sharing opinions has changed the way people communicate with each other. As a result, people and communities suffer with hateful speech and false information on these platforms which also hurt the country’s interests.

People now want digital platforms to be watched more closely by authorities. Free expression must be defended, but the platforms should also work to stop harmful information from being shared. Indian authorities introduced the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules last year, but many people object to them. Public safety measures ought to be reviewed with freedom of speech to make certain that the foundation of democracy, like debating and dissent, is not disturbed.

India’s courts keep their role by balancing the rights of free speech with national security, public safety and respecting individuals’ dignity. Many landmark court decisions in the past have maintained citizens’ rights to voice their opinions, free media and private life by referring to the constitution and changing circumstances.

Free speech and decent use of it are two major sources of strength for democratic systems. Considering speech consequences is important since communication today is very complex and society should focus on ethical standards and responsible dialogue. This way of viewing free speech helps democracy grow and ensures public leaders are accountable, supports good public conversation and also upholds equality and social peace for all people.

STATUTES

• INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a).

• INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2.

  
  

CASES

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 S.C.R. 594 (India).

• K.K. Verma v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1954 Bom. 358 (India).

• Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, (1973) S.C.R. 757 (India).

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225 (India).

• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574 (India).

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

  
  

DOCUMENTS

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948).

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.