Right to Free Speech and Censorship: A Jurisprudential Analysis

AUTHOR: NASHRA. ATIQ. SIDDIQUI, INTEGRAL UNIVERSITY (FACULTY OF LAW), LUCKNOW

The right to freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies that protects individual expression and empowers public expression. In India, this right is guaranteed under Article 19(a) of the Constitution, but subject to "reasonable provisions" under Article 19(2). This article examines laws related to freedom of speech and censorship in India and analyses the legal process, country decisions and current challenges. This research shows the strong tension between the establishment of the discourse and the maintenance of public order, morality and national security. Through a comprehensive review of key cases and academic literature, this article examines how Indian courts have interpreted freedom of speech in cultural, religious and political contexts, to the country's growth in digital communications and internet censorship.

Freedom of speech, Article 19(a), Censorship laws, Public order restrictions. 

Freedom of speech and expression is essential for a vibrant democracy to function. People can express their opinions, ideas and criticism, which is important to public discourse, political responsibility and social progress. But in a diverse society like India, this right is not absolute and has many limitations. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of expression, while Article 19(2) provides a framework for legitimate restrictions on concerns such as national security, public order, morality and corruption. India's judiciary has a lot to do in interpreting the balance between freedom of expression and censorship, especially in the country's pluralistic society, where there are religious and political tensions. and society in general when it comes to communication issues. This article examines the evolution of freedom of expression in India, focusing on how courts have addressed these concerns and the implications of digital media and internet censorship.

1. Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2):

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to "free speech and expression" to every citizen. But this is not true freedom. Article 19(2) allows the government to grant "just cause" for this right in the interests of India's independence and integrity, national security, public welfare, justice and morality, contempt of court, defamation or provocation. Gautam Bhatia's essayprovides a thorough analysis of the theoretical framework for these restrictions and examines their historical and legal context. 

2. Reasonable limit Interpretation and challenges:

The term "reasonable limit" has many legal definitions. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)The Supreme Court affirmed that restrictions on freedom of expression must be proportionate and reasonable, that is, restrictions on freedom of expression must be justified with clarity and concern now. The case found that the government could not suppress speech because it was controversial or offensive.

• The Colonial Era and Post-Independence Development:

The right to freedom of expression in India has its roots in the colonial era, when the British used prohibition to suppress dissent. After independence, the Constituent Assembly struggled with how to protect freedom of expression and maintain national unity. The framers of the Act were influenced by international principles of freedom of expression and India's unique socio-political culture. As Arun K. Thiruvengadam explains, the framers introduced multiple grounds for restricting speech to address the unique challenges posed by India’s pluralistic society.

• Blasphemy, hate speech and religious discrimination:

India's blasphemy laws, inherited from colonial rule, are still debated in the area of ​​non-disclosure. These laws are often invoked to prevent content that offends religious sentiments, but they have also been criticized for suppressing legitimate content. Abraham and Sengupta argue that the use of blasphemy laws should be limited to prevent their misuse to silence dissenting voices. In addition, India's hate speech laws aim to prevent incitement to violence, especially in the context of religious or social problems. However, the line between defamation and freedom of expression remains blurred. In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014)The Supreme Court stopped issuing new guidelines on defamation and asked Parliament to enact legislation. Tasnimal Hasan argues that India's current political environment has increased the misuse of hate speech laws to target minorities and limit freedom of expression.

With the rise of digital communications, the Indian government has become increasingly strict about internet censorship and censorship, especially during times of political unrest. Internet censorship is often necessary to prevent violence or the spread of misinformation, but it also raises concerns about the legitimacy of such measures. Bhardwaj et al provide a legal analysis of online blackmail in India and argue that these practices exceed the reasonable limits allowed under Article 199(2). In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which made offensive content on the internet vulnerable. The court ruled that this article was vague and violated the right to freedom of expression in the Constitution. This landmark judgment reinforced the importance of protecting freedom of expression in the digital age.

 Indian courts have increasingly used the doctrine of proportionality to assess the reasonableness of restrictions on freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on freedom of speech must be reasonable, reasonable, and proportionate to the harm it seeks to prevent. However, experts such as Ashwita Ambast say that this teaching is used inappropriately, because some conclusions are not consistent.

Over the decades, the judiciary of India has issued a number of landmark decisions that have shaped the legal aspects of freedom of expression. Some of the most important ones are: 

• Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962): The Supreme Court struck down a government order aimed at regulating the circulation of newspapers. The Court held that laws restricting the freedom of the press and the circulation of newspapers violated Article 19(a). This case emphasized the importance of freedom of expression to keep the press independent.

•  Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973): In Sakal papers, the Supreme Court struck down state laws that set limits on the number of pages a newspaper could publish. The court held that freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom to engage in commercial activities involving the distribution of ideas. 

• Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (2015): This landmark judgment deals with the concept of freedom of expression in the digital age. The Supreme Court struck down section 66A of the IT Act, which makes it an offense to send "offensive" messages on the Internet. The court held that this requirement is vague and broad and violates the right to free speech. This case is a great victory for the champions of freedom of expression, especially in digital media (Ambast, 2015).

• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): The Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on freedom of expression must be proportionate and reasonable. In this case, the court upheld the release of a controversial film and said that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless it is found to be harmful to society.

Hate speech presents a unique challenge to the right to freedom of expression. While freedom of speech is a protected right, hate speech, which incites violence or discrimination, is often prohibited. Indian courts have struggled to draw the line between defamation and legitimate criticism, especially when it comes to political and religious content.

1. Legal Framework:

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has several provisions such as section 153A (promoting inter-communal hatred) and section 295A (serious religious sentiments) which provides for prosecution for defamation. However, these measures are often applied unevenly, with critics arguing that they are used to suppress dissent rather than prevent serious violence.

2. The legal approach:

The judiciary generally retains the right to suppress hate speech, but has also warned against the abuse of those powers to curtail fair speech. The Shriya Singhal case was a case in which the court warned of the "chilling effect" that too broad restrictions on freedom of expression could have.

3. Influence of digital media:

With the rise of social media, negative communication has become widespread on the Internet. Studies show that hate speech-related posts on platforms like Facebook and Twitter increase significantly, especially during times of political and social unrest. Although free speech is an important right, many believe it should be brought with it, as the problem of online hate speech has grown without strong legal consequences.

The right to speech and expression is one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of India, which enables citizens to express their opinions, participate in political debates and participate in public debates. Paragraph A of Article 19 provides this right, but is not absolute, subject to appropriate restrictions in paragraph 2 of Article 19. These restrictions, based on concerns such as national security, public welfare, morality and justice, reflect the necessary balance. In many societies like India, there are different views on religion, society and politics.

Over the years, Indian courts have done many things to draw the lines for freedom of speech, on the line between protecting individual rights and protecting civil liberties. Landmark cases like Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) and Shriya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) has affirmed the importance of freedom of expression as a foundation of democracy. The judge also ruled that the restrictions must have a legitimate purpose, be consistent and serve the legitimate interests of the authorities.

However, the application of "reasonable restrictions" has given rise to many challenges, especially in sensitive matters such as defamation, defamation and public welfare. Blasphemy laws, inherited from colonial laws, are still controversial. Although the idea was to prevent communal violence and preserve religious unity, there were many criticisms of widespread and oppressive practices. As Abraham and Sengupta argue, these laws should be cautious as they pose a threat to the public.

Hate speech is another major challenge in India's freedom of speech laws. The judge knew that it was necessary to stop the bad news that incites violence, especially in a country where there are many religious and ethnic conflicts. However, the line between blasphemy and freedom of expression is still clear. In cases like Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court has recognized the dangers of defamation but has refrained from providing detailed guidelines and has largely left the matter to legal precedent. Scholars such as Tasnim al-Hassan argue that hate speech laws are sometimes used to target minorities and prevent political debate (Hassan, 2020).

The advent of digital communication and the Internet has added another layer of complexity to the landscape of free speech. Internet blackouts, often used to prevent the spread of misinformation or incitement to violence, have become a controversial topic. Advocates say the conditions are unfair and violate constitutional protections. In the Shreya Singhal case, the Supreme Court played an important role in protecting freedom of expression online by striking down Section 66A of the IT Act, which made it vulnerable to "harm" Internet Content However, the government continues to use censorship on the Internet, raising concerns about the legitimacy and legitimacy of these. In the coming days, India's judiciary will play a major role in facing new challenges to freedom of expression. 

As the digital world presents new opportunities and threats, courts must ensure that privacy restrictions are properly applied and that these restrictions do not infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens. The principle of proportionality becomes an important tool to assess the reasonableness and reasonableness of restrictions. Although the right to freedom of expression is still strong in India, the need to maintain public order, curbing negative speech and managing these restrictions is tested. Digital media laws are important to protect freedom of expression, but the growth of information, especially in the digital age, requires constant monitoring. As India grapples with the challenges of freedom of expression in the 21st century, it is important to strike a balance between protecting individual liberties and addressing national security concerns. An inclusive and less restrictive approach, especially in the digital age, is key to ensuring that freedom of expression in India remains an integral part of the country's democratic framework.

1. Drishti Judiciary, Freedom of Speech & Expression, Article 19(1)(a) of Indian constitution Drishti Judiciary, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-constitution-of-india/freedom-of-speech-&-expression (last visited Oct 6, 2024). 

2.  Article 19 in Constitution of India, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/ (last visited Oct 6, 2024). 

3.  Gautam Bhatia, Gautam Bhatia Constitutional Law and Philosophy (2023), https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/author/gautambhatia1988/page/13/ (last visited Oct 6, 2024). 

4.  In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram  , (1989). 

5.  Arun  K. Thiruvengadam , Silenced voices: unravelling India’s dissent crisis through historical and contemporary analysis of free speech and suppression, . 

6.  Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U.O.I. & Ors on 12 March, 2014, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194770087/ (last visited Oct 6, 2024). 

7.  Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/ (last visited Oct 6, 2024). 

8.  Sakal papers (P) Ltd., and others vs the Union of India on 25 September, 1961, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/243002/ (last visited Oct 6, 2024). 

9.  Risha Kulshrestha, Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors. vs. Union of India and ors. - case summary Law Times Journal (2019), https://lawtimesjournal.in/bennett-coleman-co-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-case-summary/ (last visited Oct 6, 2024). 

10.  Details of IPC Sections 153A, 295 & 295A, https://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/Details of IPC Sections 153A, 295 & 295A.pdf (last visited Oct 6, 2024). 

11.  Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras on 26 May, 1950, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/456839/ (last visited Oct 6, 2024).