Landmark Cases on Freedom of Speech and Expression in Ind
🔹 Constitutional Provision Involved: Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds such as:
Sovereignty and integrity of India
Security of the State
Friendly relations with foreign states
Public order
Decency or morality
Contempt of court
Defamation
Incitement to an offence
🔸 1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
➤ Facts:
Romesh Thappar’s English journal, Cross Roads, was banned from circulation in the then State of Madras. The ban was imposed under a public safety law.
➤ Issue:
Whether the ban violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down the ban. It held that freedom of speech includes the freedom to circulate one’s views. Restrictions on this right must be narrowly construed and must fall within the grounds listed under Article 19(2).
➤ Significance:
This was one of the first cases post-Constitution where the Supreme Court upheld free speech and declared that laws infringing it must be strictly scrutinized.
🔸 2. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950)
➤ Facts:
The Chief Commissioner of Delhi ordered a pre-censorship on the publication of Organizer, a journal run by the RSS.
➤ Issue:
Is pre-censorship of publications constitutional under Article 19(1)(a)?
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that prior restraint (pre-censorship) is an infringement of free speech unless justified under Article 19(2). It struck down the order.
➤ Significance:
Established that freedom of press is a component of freedom of speech, and prior censorship is unconstitutional unless legally and reasonably justified.
🔸 3. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
➤ Facts:
Kedar Nath, a communist leader, made speeches critical of the government and was charged under Section 124A of IPC (Sedition).
➤ Issue:
Is the sedition law (Section 124A IPC) constitutionally valid under Article 19(2)?
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of sedition, but narrowed its scope. It ruled that only those speeches that incite violence or public disorder can be punished under sedition.
➤ Significance:
Balanced free speech with national security. Mere criticism of the government without incitement to violence is not sedition.
🔸 4. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973)
➤ Facts:
The government imposed restrictions on the number of pages a newspaper could publish and controlled the size of advertisements.
➤ Issue:
Whether these restrictions amounted to a violation of the freedom of the press?
➤ Judgment:
The Court held that these measures were not reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). It ruled that freedom of speech includes the freedom of the press, and economic measures that indirectly affect this right are also unconstitutional.
➤ Significance:
Affirmed that press freedom is a part of freedom of expression, and any indirect restriction is also unconstitutional.
🔸 5. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985)
➤ Facts:
The newspaper industry challenged customs duties imposed on imported printing equipment, claiming it restricted press freedom.
➤ Issue:
Can economic laws that affect the operation of the press be seen as a restriction on free speech?
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that freedom of the press is essential to democracy. Any law that disproportionately burdens the press may violate Article 19(1)(a).
➤ Significance:
Reaffirmed press freedom and said that economic constraints on newspapers can affect editorial independence and free speech.
🔸 6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
➤ Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
➤ Issue:
Though primarily about Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), the case expanded the understanding of fundamental rights and due process.
➤ Judgment:
The Court held that the procedure under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable. It also ruled that fundamental rights are interlinked.
➤ Significance:
This case broadened the interpretation of all fundamental rights, including Article 19(1)(a), making due process and reasonableness essential.
🔸 7. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)
➤ Facts:
A Tamil movie, “Ore Oru Gramathiley,” faced a ban due to its portrayal of caste-based reservation, allegedly causing public unrest.
➤ Issue:
Whether a film can be banned due to fear of protests or violence?
➤ Judgment:
The Court ruled that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless there is a clear and present danger of public disorder. Mob threat cannot override fundamental rights.
➤ Significance:
Laid down that public reaction is not a valid ground for curbing free speech. Reinforced the "clear and present danger" test.
🔸 8. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
➤ Facts:
The petition challenged Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending “offensive” messages via computer or communication devices.
➤ Issue:
Is Section 66A violative of Article 19(1)(a) due to its vague and overbroad language?
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional. It held that the terms were vague, the law was overbroad, and had a chilling effect on free speech.
➤ Significance:
A historic judgment for internet freedom in India. It emphasized that laws must be clear, narrow, and justified to impose restrictions on speech.
🔸 9. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
➤ Facts:
Petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of criminal defamation (Sections 499 and 500 of IPC) as violative of Article 19(1)(a).
➤ Issue:
Is criminal defamation a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)?
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation as a reasonable restriction on free speech. It ruled that reputation is a component of Article 21, and protecting it is a valid ground.
➤ Significance:
Upheld criminal defamation laws, maintaining a balance between free speech and right to reputation.
🔸 10. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
➤ Facts:
Following the abrogation of Article 370, internet services were shut down in Jammu and Kashmir. Petitioners challenged the restrictions on press and speech.
➤ Issue:
Do indefinite internet shutdowns violate freedom of speech and expression?
➤ Judgment:
The Court held that freedom of speech includes the right to access information via the internet. Indefinite shutdowns are unconstitutional, and restrictions must be proportionate.
➤ Significance:
Recognized internet access as a key tool for exercising free speech, and emphasized proportionality in restrictions.
🔹 Conclusion: Key Doctrines Established
| Doctrine | Case |
|---|---|
| Freedom of Press is part of Article 19(1)(a) | Bennett Coleman, Indian Express |
| Reasonable Restrictions must be justified and specific | Romesh Thappar, Shreya Singhal |
| No Prior Restraint (except in rare cases) | Brij Bhushan |
| Public Order Test / Clear and Present Danger | Rangarajan, Kedar Nath |
| Online Free Speech Protected | Shreya Singhal, Anuradha Bhasin |
| Proportionality & Fairness in Restrictions | Maneka Gandhi, Anuradha Bhasin |
RELATED Blog
0 comments