Freedom of Expression in India

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This right, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in interpreting and defining the scope and limitations of this right through various landmark judgements. Read here to learn more.

Freedom of expression is the right of individuals to hold opinions and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.

This fundamental right is enshrined in various international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 19).

Table of Contents

Freedom of Expression in India

Constitutional Framework

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. It is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a), which states:

• Article 19(1)(a): “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.”

This right is considered essential for the functioning of a democratic society, allowing individuals to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions freely.

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

Note: To know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline) and the most effective study plan, you can call ClearIAS Mentors at +91-9605741000, +91-9656621000, or +91-9656731000.

Reasonable Restrictions

While freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute.

Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of:

1. Sovereignty and Integrity of India
2. Security of the State
3. Friendly Relations with Foreign States
4. Public Order
5. Decency or Morality
6. Contempt of Court
7. Defamation
8. Incitement to an Offence

These restrictions ensure that freedom of expression does not harm public order, morality, or the rights of others.

Legal Provisions and Judicial Interpretations

• Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita since 2023):
  • Section 124A (Sedition): Punishes any act that brings or attempts to bring hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government.
  • Section 153A: Penalizes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, etc.
  • Section 295A: Deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
  • Section 66A: Previously penalized sending offensive messages through communication service, but was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India.
  • Imposes restrictions on publications that can lower the authority of courts.
  • The judiciary has played a crucial role in balancing freedom of expression with the imposition of reasonable restrictions. Landmark judgments include:
    • Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015): Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional.
    • Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras (1950): Established that freedom of speech and expression is essential for the proper functioning of democracy.
    • Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): Affirmed that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless it threatens public order.

    Challenges and Issues

    • Sedition Law (Section 124A of IPC): There have been numerous debates on whether the sedition law is being misused to suppress dissent and criticism against the government.
    • Internet and Social Media Regulations: The government’s attempts to regulate content on digital platforms have raised concerns about potential overreach and censorship.
    • Censorship and Artistic Expression: Films, books, and artworks often face censorship or bans for allegedly hurting sentiments, raising concerns about stifling creativity and expression.
    • Hate Speech and Misinformation: Balancing freedom of expression with curbing hate speech and misinformation is a significant challenge in the digital age.

    Supreme Court Judgments

    The Supreme Court has reiterated the importance of free speech in several judgments, emphasizing that dissent is a vital part of democracy.

    1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
    • Romesh Thappar’s journal, “Cross Roads,” was banned by the Madras government on the grounds of public safety.
    • Judgement: The Supreme Court struck down the ban, asserting that freedom of speech and expression is essential for the functioning of a democracy.
    • Significance: This was one of the earliest cases to affirm that freedom of expression is a fundamental right and any restriction must be justified by the government.
    1. Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India (1962)
    • The government imposed restrictions on the number of pages newspapers could print and the prices they could charge.
    • Judgement: The Supreme Court held that these restrictions violated the freedom of the press.
    • Significance: This case established that the freedom of the press is part of the broader right to freedom of speech and expression.
    1. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972)
    • The government imposed a newsprint control order that limited the quantity of newsprint supplied to newspapers.
    • Judgement: The Supreme Court ruled that the order violated the freedom of the press.
    • Significance: The judgement emphasized that any regulation that curtails the press’s freedom to circulate is an infringement on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
    1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
    • Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without providing reasons, restricting her right to travel and express herself.
    • Judgement: The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to include the right to travel abroad.
    • Significance: This case linked the right to freedom of expression with the broader concept of personal liberty, emphasizing that the procedure established by law must be fair and just.
    1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
    • The validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, of 2000, which allowed the arrest of individuals for posting “offensive” content online, was challenged.
    • Judgement: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, deeming it unconstitutional.
    • Significance: This landmark judgement reaffirmed the importance of free speech in the digital age and underscored that vague and overly broad restrictions on speech are impermissible.
    1. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)
    • The Tamil Nadu government banned the screening of a film on the grounds of public order.
    • Judgement: The Supreme Court overturned the ban, stating that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless it threatens the foundation of the state.
    • Significance: This case underscored the importance of artistic freedom and the principle that mere anticipation of public disorder is not sufficient to suppress free speech.
    1. Indibily Creative Pvt Ltd v. State of West Bengal (2020)
    • The West Bengal Police obstructed the screening of the film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” without formal orders.
    • Judgement: The Supreme Court ordered the state to ensure the film’s unhindered screening and criticized the state’s informal suppression of free speech.
    • Significance: The judgement reinforced that state actions cannot arbitrarily infringe on the freedom of expression and artistic creativity.

    Why in the news?

    The Karnataka government’s decision to stop the release of the Hindi film, Hamare Baarah, for two weeks violates the freedom of expression in the name of upholding order and preventing communal tension.

    • Such a ban on public screening of films, independent of their merit, has no place in a democratic society.
    • The Bombay High Court, which initially stayed the release of Hamare Baarah, has lifted the ban, following the producer’s offer to remove some controversial dialogues.
    • Its observation that allowing an individual to stall the release of a certified film would encourage film producers to be held to ransom is consistent with judicial precedents.
    • Once it is certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, presumably after proper scrutiny of its suitability for public viewing, there ought to be no scope for a second opinion by a law enforcement authority.

    Conclusion

    Freedom of expression in India is a fundamental right that is crucial for the functioning of democracy.

    While the Constitution provides for this right, it also allows for reasonable restrictions to ensure it does not harm public order or the rights of others.

    The legal and judicial frameworks aim to balance these interests, but challenges remain, particularly with laws that can be perceived as tools for suppressing dissent.

    Continuous dialogue and judicial oversight are essential to uphold the spirit of freedom of expression in India.

    -Article by Swathi Satish