Legal cases with fixed pricing, standardized processes, and firm timelines
The Indian Constitution guarantees various fundamental rights to an Indian citizen. One such right is the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Freedom of speech and expression enables a person to express his opinions freely with certain reasonable restrictions. It is an indispensable right in a democracy and is guaranteed to the citizens of India under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It enshrines the principle of ‘liberty of thought and expression’ given in the Preamble.
Freedom of Speech and Expression gives the citizens of India the right to express one’s opinions and beliefs without any fear, by modes of words, written or spoken, pictures, or any other communicable or visual representation like gestures or signs. It includes the liberty to propagate one’s own views as well as the right to publish the views of other people. However, the right to speech and expression is not an absolute right and reasonable restrictions may be imposed by the State under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The Purpose is Freedom of Speech and Expression is four-fold.
It allows for the self-fulfillment of an individual and protects his individuality in a democracy.
It allows for the free flow of ideas, beliefs, and thoughts and strengthens the community.
It galvanizes the process of dialogue and ensures voices are not suppressed leading to the discovery of truth at large.
It provides for a reasonable balance between society at large and laissez-faire.
The Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and Article 19(2) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression.
Freedom of Press is implicit in the freedom of expression forming the backbone of political liberty and proper functioning of the democracy. Dr. Ambedkar had quoted that “The editor of a press or the manager is merely exercising the right of expression and therefore freedom of the press does not require a special mention.”
In the case of Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, the Court had upheld that freedom of press derives its roots from Article 19(1) (a) and its maintenance is the primary duty of the Court.
In the case of Romesh Thappar vs. the State of Madras, the ban of entry and circulation of a journal, and that in the case of Benet Coleman and Co. vs. Union of India, the limitation of the maximum number of pages in the newspaper were both held to be against the basic tenet of freedom to circulate under Article 19(1)(a).
Further, in the case of Prabhu Dutt vs. Union of India, and Sheela Barse vs. the State of Maharashtra, it was held that the right to know news and information regarding the administration of the government is included in the freedom of the press.
Commercial speech or commercial advertisements can be segregated into two, first, those dealing with the commerce or trade and second, those propagating ideas. As upheld in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India, protection of freedom of speech and imposition of restrictions thereof only extends to the second category.
In the case of Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nagar Ltd., it was held that commercial speech is a facet of freedom of speech and expression. The economic system in a democracy would be disabled if there is no freedom of commercial speech. This case limited the application of the ruling of Hamdard Dawakhana Case i.e. commercial speech or advertisements cannot be denied protection under Article 19(1)(a) on the grounds that it is issued by businessmen.
With the advent of technology, the new dimension of freedom to speech and expression that has been recognized by Courts is the right to broadcast and advertising. In the case of Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, the issue came before the Supreme Court when a registered social organization, Lokvidayan Sanghatana, filed a PIL to restrain broadcasting of a show “Hony Anhoni” on grounds that it spreads superstition. The court held that the right to broadcast within the ambit of terms and conditions already imposed is a part of freedom of speech.
After the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in a series of judgments, the right to information has been held to emerge from the Constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(a).
It was held in the case of Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal; wherein the Delhi High Court re-affirmed that the right to information is not the legislation but the Constitutional freedom of speech and expression. Further, it was held in Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms, that to ensure that the citizens are informed and one-sided information or misinformation does not make democracy a farce, it is essential to include the right to impart and receive information under Article 19(1)(a).
The right to know the functioning of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) was upheld to be within the freedom of speech and expression in the case Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah. It was opined by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Ors. v. Union of India case that “in modern democracies governed by a Constitution, it is self-evident that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the government which is elected by them.”
The right to form an opinion and to express it in a manner that does not cause defamation to the other person to whom such criticism is directed is protected under the freedom of speech and expression. Democracy allows for open discussion and criticism of policies. This view was upheld in the case of S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram.
Freedom of speech and expression is not limited or restricted by geographical limitations or boundaries. In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that Article 19(1)(a) includes both right to speak and express in India and abroad.
The Supreme Court upheld in Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala and the National Anthem Case that no person can be put under any compulsion to sing the National Anthem “if he has genuine conscientious objections based on his religious faith.” In the same instance, three students who belonged to Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled from school on grounds of refusal to sing the National Anthem which was in clear violation of the circular issued by Director of Public Instructions Kerala. The circular made it obligatory to sing the National Anthem in school. Their contentions were based on religious faith, which did not permit them to join in any rituals except in the prayer of Jehovah, their God.
Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Kerala High Court which had upheld the expulsion of students and upheld that no offense was committed under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 as they stood up respectfully for the National Anthem. The right to silence was recognized as a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression.sd
The Constitution allows imposition of reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of the public at large on the following grounds:
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code defines sedition as any act, words, spoken or written, visual representation or employment of any other mode to incite dissatisfaction towards the Government or the National Laws. Though not expressly stated as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), the State is empowered to impose a reasonable restriction under public order on this ground as held in the case of Devi Saren vs. State. In the case of Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs. Emperor, the High Court held that mere criticism does not amount to sedition. To constitute sedition there must be an attempt to undermine the respect for the Government and its laws.
Freedom of speech and expression despite being a fundamental right is not absolute in nature. It is subjected to reasonable restrictions by the State. Therefore, any act of expression or speech which falls under the ambit of grounds aforementioned under Article 19(2) is not protected by Article 19(1)(a). For example, an exercise of the right to speech to entice people against the government cannot be protected under the blanket of the fundamental right. Sedition though not explicitly mentioned under article 19(2) is protected under the heading of Public Order.
Does India really have freedom of speech and expression?
Yes, India has freedom of speech and expression guaranteed as a Constitutional fundamental under Article 19(1) (a). However, it is not absolute and is subjected to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the State under the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) including public order, decency, morality, sovereignty and integrity of the nation amongst others. The Indian Judiciary has played a vital role in constantly expanding the ambit of the aforementioned right to suit the changing times and situations.
What is the meaning of freedom of speech and expression?
Freedom of Speech and Expression indicates the right to express one’s opinions and beliefs without any fear, by modes of words, written or spoken, pictures, or any other communicable or visual representation like gestures or signs. It includes the liberty to propagate one’s own views as well as the right to publish the views of other people. It includes the freedom of the press, broadcasting, advertisements, etc. amongst others.
What does Article 19 of the Indian Constitution say?
Article 19(1) of the Constitution guarantees six fundamental freedoms to the Citizens of India and Article 19(2) to Article 19(6) provide for reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the State on these fundamental freedoms. All citizens shall have the right,
What is the right to freedom of expression?
The right to freedom of expression implies the right to present or portray one’s point of view, opinion, belief or outlook by any mode of communication, words: written or spoken, visual representation, paintings, printings, etc. amongst various others. It is the presentation of one’s opinion in a free manner without any interference. However, the right is not absolute in nature and is subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Is protesting legal?
Yes, protest is a legal way of expression. It is protected under article 19(1)(a) as long as it is not violent and does not fall under the grounds for reasonable restrictions enlisted under Article 19(2). Protests can be a means to express dissent, grief, disapproval, etc. However, under special circumstances the government may impose a curfew, thereby not allowing assembly of people. In such situations, a protest through legal may have repercussions.
Does freedom of expression have limits?
Yes, similar to other fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, freedom of expression has limits. It is not an absolute fundamental right. The Restrictions should be reasonable and can only be imposed by the State. The Restrictions include:
Is freedom of expression a constitutional right?
Freedom of expression is a Fundamental Right guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a). It is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the State under sub-heads mentioned in Article 19(2).
What are some examples of freedom of speech?
Few examples of freedom of speech are:
 Romesh Thapper vs. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
 Lowell vs. Griffin (1939) 303 US 444
 Srinivas v. State of Madras, AIR 1931 Mad 70
 Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129
 Dr. Ambedkar’s Speech in Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII, 980
 (1985) 1 SCC 641
 AIR 1950 SC 124
 AIR 1973 SC 106
 AIR 1982 SC 6
 (1997) 4 SCC 373
 AIR 1960 SC 554
 (1995) 5 SCC 139
 (1988) 3 SCC 410
 AIR 2010 Del 159 (FB)
 (2002) 5 SCC 294
 (1992) 3 SCC 637
 AIR 1978 SC 597
 (1986) 3 SCC 615
 AIR 1950 SC 124
 Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124
 LR 3 QB 360
 AIR 1954 Pat 254
 AIR 1942 FC 22