UTTAR PRADESH STATE

LAW COMMISSION

Freedom Of Speech
and Expression

2 JULY 2025

Presented to
Chairman Uttar Pradesh State Law
Commission

Prepared by
Alok Tripathi
BA.LL.B 4th Semester
Maa Vaishno Devi Law College Lucknow
 Table of Contents

1. Acknowledgement……………………………………………………….1

2. Abstract……………………………………………………………… 2-3

3. Research Methodology…………………………………………………… 4

4. Introduction and significance………………………………………………………………5-16

5. Historical background………………………………………… 17-18

6.Freedom of press………………………………………………………19-20

7. Limitations on Freedom of Press in India…………………… 21-22

8. Freedom of Press in India my point of view……..23-27

9. Landmark Cases……………………………………………………………28-40

Eg-

(a)Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950

(B) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

(C) Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985)

10. Conclusion……………………………………………………………… 41

11. suggestion………………………………………………………………42-43

11. References……………………………………………………………… 44-45

 Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who supported me
throughout the completion of this research paper titled "Freedom of Speech and
Expression."

I extend my heartfelt thanks to the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission for
providing me with the opportunity to submit this research. It has been a valuable
experience that enhanced my understanding of one of the most vital
constitutional rights in a democratic society.

I am deeply thankful to my parents for their constant support, encouragement,

and belief in my abilities. Their unwavering motivation and love have been
instrumental in helping me stay committed to my academic goals.

Lastly, I express my gratitude to everyone who contributed, directly or indirectly,

to the successful completion of this paper.

Alok Tripathi
BA.LL.B (4th Semester)

1
Abstract

The right to freedom of speech and expression is one of the most essential and celebrated rights
guaranteed to Indian citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Recognized as
the cornerstone of a democratic society, this fundamental right empowers individuals to express
their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and emotions freely, thereby facilitating open dialogue, critical
thinking, and participatory governance. However, the right is not absolute. Article 19(2) provides
for reasonable restrictions that the State can impose on this freedom in the interests of
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States,
public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
This dual framework of rights and restrictions raises complex questions about the extent, scope,
and limitations of free expression in a diverse and pluralistic society like India.

This research paper aims to explore the evolution, scope, judicial interpretation, and
contemporary challenges associated with the freedom of speech and expression in India. It
begins with an analysis of the historical background and the framers’ intent behind including this
right in the Constitution. Drawing parallels with similar rights enshrined in international legal
instruments, such as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the paper places India’s framework in a comparative global
context.

The paper then delves into the constitutional provisions, focusing specifically on the language of
Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2), to understand the balance between freedom and restriction.
The jurisprudential journey through landmark Supreme Court judgments like Romesh Thappar v.
State of Madras, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, and Shreya
Singhal v. Union of India is analyzed in detail to demonstrate the judiciary’s evolving approach
in interpreting this fundamental right. The transition from a conservative reading to a more
expansive interpretation reflects the dynamic nature of constitutional law and the growing
importance of speech in the digital age.

Further, the research identifies and examines the practical and emerging challenges in exercising
this freedom in modern India. These include the role of social media platforms, fake news, online
hate speech, sedition laws, censorship in cinema and art, and the criminalization of dissent.
Special attention is paid to the misuse of colonial-era laws such as Section 124A of the Indian
Penal Code (sedition), which continue to pose a threat to free expression, despite being
inconsistent with the spirit of Article 19(1)(a). The paper also explores the chilling effects
created by vaguely worded laws like Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (now
struck down), highlighting the tension between state control and individual liberty.

Another vital aspect of the research is the treatment of freedom of the press, a right not
separately enumerated in the Constitution but implicitly recognized under Article 19(1)(a). The
role of a free press in a democracy, the challenges posed by government regulations, ownership
monopolies, and paid news are critically analyzed. In the same vein, artistic freedom and

2
academic freedom are discussed as extensions of expressive liberty, with references to
controversies surrounding books, films, and university debates.

The paper also addresses the role of civil society, activists, and public intellectuals in defending
this right. Recent incidents involving arrests, FIRs, and legal harassment of journalists,
comedians, and ordinary citizens for expressing dissent are presented to underscore the growing
intolerance towards free speech. These cases are not only legal but deeply political and cultural
in nature, raising serious questions about the health of democratic discourse in India.

An important component of the analysis is the balancing of rights. The paper evaluates how
courts have weighed freedom of expression against other rights and interests, such as communal
harmony, religious sentiments, and the right to reputation. Case laws on hate speech, blasphemy,
and defamation (both civil and criminal) are examined to explore the conflict between free
speech and societal harmony. The tension between freedom of expression and the right to
privacy, especially after the landmark Puttaswamy judgment, is also touched upon.

Finally, the paper presents critical reflections and recommendations. It argues for the repeal or
reform of outdated and draconian laws like sedition, the need for clearer and narrower definitions
of “reasonable restrictions,” and the importance of promoting a culture of tolerance and debate. It
calls for judicial consistency and principled adjudication in free speech cases and stresses the
role of legal education and media literacy in fostering constitutional values.

In conclusion, freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is not merely a legal
right but a foundational pillar of Indian democracy. It enables citizens to engage in public
discourse, hold the government accountable, and participate fully in the democratic process.
However, its meaningful exercise requires constant vigilance, robust legal protections, and a
cultural commitment to pluralism and dialogue. As India navigates complex social, political, and
technological transformations, the preservation and strengthening of this fundamental freedom
must remain a constitutional priority.

3
Research Methodology

This research is primarily doctrinal and qualitative in nature, based on an analytical and
interpretative study of constitutional provisions, judicial decisions, academic commentaries, and
legislative texts. The aim of the research is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the
concept of freedom of speech and expression, freedom of the press, and their reasonable
restrictions .

Sources of Data

The research relies on secondary sources such as:

• Constitutional provisions, especially Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)

• Landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts
• Law commission reports, academic journals, and legal commentaries
• Historical documents tracing the development of speech rights before and after Indian
independence

Scope of Research

• The historical background and evolution of freedom of speech and expression in India.
• An analysis of the legal framework governing free speech and press freedom in the
Indian Constitution.
• A study of various restrictions imposed by law and judicial interpretation.
• Discussion on contemporary issues such as digital speech, media freedom, censorship,
and sedition laws.

Method of Analysis

The research uses case law analysis and comparative interpretation to understand how courts
have balanced individual rights with public interest. It further includes descriptive and critical
evaluation of how press freedom and speech are treated in practice versus principle.

Objective

The main objective is to build informed legal knowledge and awareness regarding:

• The scope and significance of speech and expression in a democracy

• Legal limitations imposed to ensure public order and security
• Judicial protection and enforcement of these rights
• Challenges faced in modern times, especially concerning the press and digital platforms

4
 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

INTRODUCTION

Every democratic civilization on the planet is built on the foundation of free speech. The freedom to talk
freely and obtain information from others is at the heart of free speech. It is considered the primary
criterion for autonomy. It is considered the “mother” of all other freedoms and is regarded as one of the
most crucial civil freedoms that are protected from state repression or limitation2. Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India guarantees this basic right to free speech and expression. As per the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the right to free speech is recognized under the
international human rights law, while Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
recognizes freedom of expression as a human right. As free expression is not an unqualified right, hence
certain limits are in place upon this right under Article 19(2). However, the only way to limit freedom of
speech is through legislation. The right to disseminate material, publish it, and market the same also falls
under the ambit of this freedom.

MEANING AND EXTENT OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION

The privilege of free expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) solely to Indian citizens, and not to
anyone who is a foreigner and not an Indian citizen3. The right to freely express one's views and opinions
by words, literature, publishing, illustrations, or any other method is known as freedom of speech and
expression. As a result, it encompasses the representation of one's ideas, feelings, opinions, and
thoughts through any communicative media or visual presentation, such as signs, gestures, symbols, and
the like4. The rights granted by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution are those of a free person. These are
not statutory rights, but rather natural law or common law rights. Hence, every citizen has the right to
exercise such rights, subject to limitations established by the state as needed5.

Freedom of expression serves four broad special purposes:

(1) It enables an individual to accomplish self-fulfillment;

(2) It assists in the revelation of reality and the veracity of claims; it enhances an individual's capacity to
participate in decision-making; and, aids in the knowledge of the truth, and the revelation of it.
* manupatra articles. respected author Tejaswini kaushal
* Dheerendra Patanjali, Freedom of Speech and Expression, India v America - A Study.
2 Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Supdt., Presidency Jail, Calcutta, MANU/SC/0074/1955; State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills Ltd.,
MANU/SC/0092/1974.
3 Lowell v. Griffin, (1939) 303 US 444.
4 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0012/1950; Collector of Malabar v. Erimal Ebrahim Hajee, MANU/SC/0015/1957.

5
(3) It supports and enhances an individual's ability to engage in judgment making; and

(4) It supplies a mechanism for striking a significant compromise between social cohesion and social
transformation6.

Everyone in the Indian societal structure is allowed to create their own opinions and openly express them
to others. The basic concept at play in the implementation of the concerned right is the entitlement of the
people to obtain information. As a result, every individual who deems that citizen engagement in
governmental activities is necessary should enthusiastically promote freedom of speech. Because of our
community's significant interest in free expression, the government must be more cautious when
imposing taxes on items linked to the newspaper and media business than when imposing taxes on other
items7. However, public demonstrations, whether religious, political, social or a manifestation of some
other issue, that cause public disturbances, act as nuisances or result in some concrete private or public
harm do not fall in the ambit of Article 19(1)(a)8.

Commercial and creative speech is not specifically included in the Indian set of laws. However, the Indian
law has significantly evolved and improved, and in the lines of the same, the Supreme Court has opined
that ‘commercial speech’ cannot be deprived of the shield of Article 19(1)(a). It was decided by the Court
that the aspect of 'commercial speech' is well protected under the Constitution-provided right to free
speech. The freedom to access, consume, and attend commercial speech is guaranteed to all Indian
citizens. Artistic expressions, such as the rights to paint, mime, dance, compose, to create poetry and
literary pieces, falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech and expression.

It's worth noting that the scope of the right to free speech as per Article 19(1)(a) has been broadened to
encompass the right to receive and transmit information. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain9, the
Supreme Court concluded that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution bestows upon every citizen the right to
indulge in free speech, as well as the right to receive and spread information on topics of public
importance. The freedom to collect and communicate information is included in Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India, according to Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India
v. Cricket Association of Bengal10. For each person, the print media is a strong instrument for
disseminating and receiving information.

ORIGIN AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

In India, the right to free speech is given great consideration. Its significance is readily apparent when one
considers that the constitution's preamble guarantees all people, among other things, the freedom of
manupatra articles. Respected author Tejaswini kaushal

5 J. N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India, CENTRAL LAW AGENCY, 47th edn., 2010, p. 183.
6 Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0406/1984; Reliance Petro-chemicals limited v. Indian Newspapers
(Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., MANU/SC/0412/1988.
7 Bimal Gurung v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0259/2018.
8 MANU/UP/0082/1974.
9 MANU/SC/0246/1995.

6
opinion, speech, faith, worship, and religion. The constitutional importance of freedom of speech is
established in the Preamble, which translates it into a basic civil right under Article 19(1)(a). The right to
free speech has a rich and extensive history. It may be found in today's international conventions on
human rights. The notion of free speech is said to have begun in the late fifth or early sixth centuries BC.
Freedom of speech and religion were two of the Roman Republic's core ideals11.

Early human rights documents contain the concepts of free speech and freedom of expression. England's
Bill of Rights 1689 guaranteed the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. The French
Revolution of 1789 established freedom of expression as an inalienable right. Over a century ago, in
Abrams v. United States12, one of the earliest instances to interpret and develop the thesis that would
come to occupy a near-holy place in America's legal character, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed
his dissent, claiming that free speech has always been a never-ending endeavor. It is closely linked to
democracy. Freedom of expression is a fundamental characteristic of the United States Constitution,
according to the First Amendment.

A constitutional provision's adoption is a major event, and it holds essential importance in determining the
upcoming legal environment of a country13. Adoption, according to some experts, crystallizes a
principle14. The right to freely express and propagate one's opinion is a claim against the state policies
that began in England under common law precedents15. The freedom of the press is one of the great
embankments of sovereignty and autonomy, and it can on no account be curtailed at the hands of
dictatorial governments, according to Section 12 of the Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776. As per Article 19 of
the UDHR, everyone is endowed with the right to free expression, and this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without restriction and to access, acquire, and import knowledge and opinions through channels
of media and regardless of boundaries16.

Justice Bhagwati, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India17, underlined the importance of free speech,
saying that a democratic society stands fundamentally upon unfettered debate, discussion, and open
dialogue, as it acts as the sole "corrective of government action" keeping in view the democratic setting.
Considering that democracy is the rule “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, it is self-evident
that each and every citizen is authorized to have the right to partake in the processes concerning
democratic functioning, and that unfettered and open debate of issues concerning the general public is
vitally essential to allow him to exercise his right to vote wisely.

manupatra articles. respected author Tejaswini kaushal

10 M. P. Charlesworth, Freedom of speech in Republican Rome, The Classical Review, THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION 57 (1): 49, (March
1943).
11 250 U.S. 616.
12 42 MARYLAND LAW REVIEW.
13 P. Berger, Brest's Brief for an Imperial Judiciary, 40 MD. L. REV. 1, 2-7, 26- 31 (1981).
14 A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of Law of the Constitution, MACMILLAN, NEW YORK, 10th edn. 1959, p. 238ff, 247ff.
15 United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 217A (III), 10th December, 1948.
16 MANU/SC/0133/1978.

7
It is evident that the freedom to express one’s views is the most important. The bedrock of democratic
government is the allowance and propagation of free speech. This liberty is necessary for the democratic
process to work properly. The fundamental condition of autonomy is the right to free speech and that to
freely express oneself. It holds a prominent place in the hierarchy of freedoms, providing support and
protection to all others. It is true to say that it is the source of all other freedoms18.

Freedom of speech and expression offer avenues for free conversation in a democracy. Free speech is
critical in shaping public opinion on social, political, and economic issues. Since the 1950s, the Supreme
Court has interpreted free expression, as well as the equality clause and the protection of life and liberty,
with sufficient volition. It has been referred to as a "fundamental human right," "a natural right," and other
terms. The capacity to propagate ideas apart from one's own is part of the right to free speech. It also
includes the right to broadcast or publish other people's views; otherwise, the press would end up
being excluded from this freedom.

The Supreme Court decided in Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India & Anr.19 that free speech is one of the
foundations of the Indian Constitution and that it upholds it. The right to free speech and expression is a
crucial component of a democratic framework. In order to maintain a functioning democracy, citizens must
be informed and educated. Any incursions against free speech, as well as opposing and divergent views
of expression, as well as any laws enacted in the manner of putting restrictions, will lead to curbing on
free speech.

FREE SPEECH AS A CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY

A strong democracy and a healthy society have long valued the right to freedom of speech and
expression. For a democratic polity, it has been regarded to be fundamental and indivisible. It is
democracy's fourth pillar. Democracy refers to a governmental system that is of, run by, and is for the
people. As a result, democracy lies in the hands of the general public, and the right to free and
open expression is critical to the state's healthy functioning. The right to free speech is a tool that allows
humans to live in dignity rather than as mere animals. It has been said that without access to free and
unfettered speech and expression, democracy is meaningless.

There is also a need to preserve balance since some individuals are corrupted and do not exercise their
privileges properly. The First Amendment safeguards for free and unhindered speech and expression in
the United States are closely linked to democracy. Free speech is a fundamental natural civil right
assured by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is said to be the core principle and a crucial
element of democracy since it allows individuals to express themselves fearlessly.

17 M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA, 6th edn., 2012, p. 1078.
18 MANU/UC/1852/2011.

8
Chief Justice Patanjali Shastri, in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras20, expressed his views, that
without open political deliberation and public education, the appropriate functioning of the popular
governmental institutions will not be possible. Issues of misuse of these rights might arise from the
bestowal of such enormous freedom. However, the framers of the Constitution may well have agreed with
Madison, who was the driving force behind the First Amendment's drafting, who believed that it is better
to leave in some demerits in the concept than take away all of the merits of the same only to ensure that
the demerits don't reflect.

As free speech about civic matters is critical to the functioning of our intricate system of democracy, it is
an obligatory outcome of the constitutional provisions creating it, Justice K.K. Mathew has observed21.
The right to free expression is a crucial and indispensable component of a nation having adopted
democracy. The majority of people believe that democracy is simply about a vote-based election system,
but that is not the case, though. Democracy entails far more than just voting. Citizens have a right
to participate in the country's functioning even after elections and after administrations are created22.
Citizens are allowed to express their opinions about the democratic processes well after the elections as
well. It does not only mean that a citizen can express his views only in an eloquent, logical, or courteous
manner. It can very well include discourteous, insulting, illogical, and even puzzling expressions. This has
therefore required the constitution to put reasonable restrictions on this right so that it can be regulated by
the state in proper manner.

INTERNATIONAL STANCE ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

The right to freely communicate one's thoughts and ideas is regarded as a fundamental component of
international law. The right to free speech is today considered to be a rule of conventional international
law, since it is resolutely safeguarded by international conventions, regional legislation on human rights,
and lately developed domestic legislations on human rights. All have the right to free
expression, according to Article 19 of the UDHR, and this includes the right to freedom of opinions, ideas,
and beliefs without obstruction and to access, collect, and disseminate thoughts and data through any
means and regardless of any boundaries.

Right of speech is also specified under the ICCPR as the freedom to seek, receive, and transmit thoughts
and knowledge of all kinds, independent of frontiers, verbally, in writing, in print, as an art piece, or via
any other media of one's choosing23. This safeguards all kinds of communication, including various
means, be it written, spoken, or sign language, as well as non-verbal expressions such as artworks24.
Additional rights cannot be exercised in society if free speech is not available. The right to free speech is
also recognized by international, national, and regional rules. Article 13 of the American Convention on

19 MANU/SC/0006/1950.
20 K.K. Mathew, Democracy, Equality and Freedom” in Upendra Baxi (eds.), Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 1978, p. 98.
21 Pujarani Behera, An Analysis of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, 11 PEN ACCLAIMS 1, 1-12 (2020).
22 United Nations, 1966, Article 19(2).
23 UN Human Rights Committee, 2011, para. 12.

9
Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 of the
African Charter on Human and People's Rights, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights recognize the existence of this right.

Free speech allows people to express their beliefs and political opinions for the betterment of society and
the state. As a result, it offers a system through which a suitable balance between permanence and social
reform may be achieved. It is of crucial importance in a democratic setup as it improves a person's ability
to participate in the decision-making process. Individuals' rights to self-development and satisfaction
include the right to free expression, and therefore safeguarding freedom of expression is critical.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS

Freed speech is truly vital in a democratic setup, especially accompanied by a free press. Great thinkers
like Voltaire, George Orwell, Thomas Jefferson, and Calvin Coolidge have aptly expressed their views in
favor of the freedom of the press. The press’s right to freedom, which is implied in the right to free
speech, is critical for political autonomy and democracy's efficient operation. The freedom of the press is
a subpart of the bigger domain of freedom of speech and expression.

Justice Patanjali Shastri expressed in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras25 that the freedom of the
press, imbibed within the right to free speech, acts as the groundwork for every democratic organization,
and that in absence of unrestricted political dialogue and instruction the democratic structures will wither
away. Lord Mansfield also commented on the press's liberty consisting of printing of texts without any
permission subject to the penalties of the law of the land. As a result, press freedom entails the ability to
print and disseminate whatever one wants without seeking permission beforehand. The freedom of the
press is not restricted only to newspapers and magazines. It extends to the inclusion of booklets,
circulars, and any other type of publication that serves as a vehicle for information and opinion.

Freedom of the press is extremely vital to democracy, and there is no freedom when a man cannot
openly communicate his opinions to one another, even though the right of free speech subsists from the
outset of a free and liberated society, and tools for every aim of actualizing autonomy are already
existent. As a result, among the rights, free expression is unique according to the American Press
Commission26. The Indian Press Commission has taken a similar stance, stating that democracy
requires not only the supervision and direction of the legislature, but also the supervision and direction of
public opinion to subsist and that the press is, without a doubt, the medium through which public opinion
can be publicized27.

Unlike the United States of America's Constitution, India's Constitution does not directly mention press
freedom in Article 19(1)(a); nonetheless, it has been held that press freedom is included in the freedom of

24 Supra note 19.

25 Lowell v. Griffin, (1938) 303 US 444; Sakal Papers Limited v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0090/1961.
26 Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, MANU/SC/0007/1950.

10
speech and expression. There are no special rights granted to the press that are not also granted to or
asserted by an individual in his private capacity. This is because the editor or the management of a media
channel are simply utilizing their right to free speech when publicizing their opinion, and for the same, no
special rights are required just for the sake of it coming under a press publication28.

The term "expression" also refers to "publishing," hence press freedom is covered under this category.
The goal must be the free dissemination of ideas, which can be performed on any platform or through
media channels. The freedom of circulation guarantees the unfettered and mass dissemination of
thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. The liberty of circulation, similar to the liberty of publishing, is important to
uphold the freedom of speech. Indeed, the journal would be highly insignificant if there were restrictions
imposed on its distribution regardless of allowing its publication29. The right to free speech entails the
right to disseminate other people’s views and ideas as well. It includes within its ambit the right to spread
or publish the opinions and thoughts of others30; otherwise, the press would be excluded from this
freedom.

The Supreme Court decided in Prabha Dutt v. Union of India31 that the right to access and
acquire news and information on government management falls within the ambit of the freedom of the
press. However, this said right is not unlimited, and in the interests of individuals and society from whom
the press acquires information, limits can be imposed. Justice Blackstone has also made essential
observations discussing the freedom of the press in England in his Commentary on the Laws of England,
highlighting its need for a free state yet subject to restrictions.

The Apex Court observed in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India32 that
dialogue needs in a democratic country should be met by the extension of specific rights such as the right
to privacy, the right to inform, the right to be informed, the right to communicate, the right to partake in
civic interactions, and so on. The press has now begun the process of acting as a public instructor,
enabling large-scale education, both formal and informal, primarily in developing countries where not all
members of the society enjoy equitable access to broadcast television and other means of
contemporary communications technology.

The press's goal is to preserve the public good by disseminating information and viewpoints that might
otherwise prevent a democratic electorate from making well-informed decisions. Newspapers regularly
print information that is distasteful to governments and other subsidiary organizations holding power, as
assessors of news and ideas having an influence on government administration. In order to reveal the
government's flaws, the authors of articles published in newspapers must be skeptical of the

27 Dr. Ambedkar’s speech in Constituent Assembly Debates, VII, 980.

28 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0006/1950; Life Insurance Corpn. Of India v. Manubhai D. Shah,
MANU/SC/0032/1993.
Rajeev Suri vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (05.01.2021 - SC) : MANU/SC/0001/2021.
29 Srinivas v. State of Madras, MANU/SC/0061/1955.
30 MANU/SC/0087/1981
31 MANU/SC/0406/1984.

11
government's actions. Such publications might become a source of annoyance or even a danger to
authority. There is no specific protection of journalistic freedom provided under the "Freedom of Speech
and Expression Act", and this freedom is incorporated within the freedom of expression itself that has
been granted to all citizens33. This decision also established that the freedom of ordinary citizens
surpasses the freedom of the press as per India's Constitution.

There are recent controversies that emerged regarding the right to free speech by media personnel. The
media is accountable for spreading relevant and essential information to citizens and guaranteeing
governmental answerability, hence freedom of the press is a crucial democratic ideal. The Supreme Court
made a connection between the freedom of the press and the right to privacy, emphasizing the
importance of the press in protecting constitutional ideals34. The Court further emphasized the
importance of the right to freedom of speech and expression in guaranteeing this freedom.

In the case of Union of India v. Manohar Lal Sharma35, the Court issued an interim order for
establishing a Technical Committee to oversee the Pegasus investigation which had revealed that many
journalists, politicians, and activists had fallen prey to such intrusive activities. The Court stressed that
even a legal infringement on one's right to privacy must be commensurate to the law's objective. The
Central Government cannot use national security as an excuse to avoid responsibility. The Court
acknowledged the connection between the right to free speech and the right to privacy, emphasizing that
an intrusion upon private information may end up causing "self-censorship". They said that freedom of the
press and private rights were closely associated, and that apprehension of monitoring constituted
an "assault" on the press, which they defined as "democracy's fourth pillar".

In the case of Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors.36, The petitioner, a late journalist, was prosecuted
with sedition in 2021 due to a video he had uploaded on YouTube video criticizing the government
policies. He disputed the FIR, claiming that he was just exercising his fundamental right of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) and that any act of sedition had not been proven. In June 2021, a two-
judge panel of the Supreme Court annulled the FIR citing the decision in Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay) Private Ltd v Union of India37, declared that press freedom was at the "heart of social and
political interaction."

As a result, Article 19 (1(a) covers the right to broadcast. "The right to knowledge is a crucial part of
freedom of expression. The right to receive, know, and transmit information has been recognized as a
component of the right to free speech. A citizen is authorized of the basic right to utilize the most effective
method of transmitting as well as intercepting information, including access to telecasting for that

32 Virender Vs. State of Punjab, MANU/SCOR/73584/2012; Sakal Papers Vs. Union of India, MANU/SC/0090/1961.
34
Gauri Kashyap, SC Judgment Review 2021: Freedom of the Press, SUPREME COURT OBSERVER (Feb. 20, 2022, 9:29 PM),
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sc-judgment-review-2021-freedom-of-the-press-pegasus-manohar-lal-sharma-vinod-dua/.
35 MANU/SC/0989/2021.
36 MANU/SC/0363/2021
37 Supra note 28.

12
purpose. Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which specifies the people's right to seek
government officials for information, restricts the disclosure of certain materials. These exclusions are
typically used to justify reasonable limitations on free speech under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

RTI (Right to Information)

RTI is an acronym that stands for Right to Information. "Right to Information" is a component of the right
of "speech and expression" as included in article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution, according to People's
Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India38. As a result, the right to information is unquestionably a
fundamental right." The Supreme Court said in Govt. of India v. The Cricket Association of Bengal39
that free speech includes the right to acquire and share knowledge. It enables people to take part in
debates on cultural and ethical issues. The right to free speech includes the right to education,
information, and entertainment, as well as the right to be educated, informed, and entertained.

"Information" is defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as any material existing in any medium, including
records, documents, memorandums, e-mails, comments, words of advice, press releases, bulletins,
authorizations, logbooks, agreements, reports, paper works, specimens, information held in any
electronic form, and data relating to any private body that can be utilized by a governmental entity under
any other law currently in force."

The right to information (RTI) is defined in Section 2(j) as follows: "Right to Information" means the right to
inspect work, documents, and records possessed by or under the command of any public organization
and includes the right to:

i. Inspect activity, documents, and records;

ii. Takedown comments, gist, or certified copies of records;
iii. Take certified copies of documents or records;
iv. Obtain information on video disks, or tapes.

People cannot communicate or express themselves until they know, as the Apex Court opined in the
matter of Raj Narain v. State of UP40 in 1976. As a result, the right to information falls within the scope
of Article 19. The Apex Court also stated that as India is a democracy, the masters are the people.
Therefore, the masters hold a legitimate right to be informed on how the government that is supposed to
serve them, works. As an illustration for this pertinent need, one can note that as each and every
individual is paying taxes, it is the right of the person to know as to how the money so collected through
the tax system is put to use for the benefit of the people.

38 MANU/SC/0234/2003.
39 MANU/SC/0246/1995.
40 MANU/UP/1462/2009.

13
Since the right to information acts as a crucial constituent of free expression, the right to know, to
intercept, and to transmit information has also been acknowledged as constituent of the right to free
expression. Each citizen enjoys the basic right of utilizing the most effective method of transmission of
information and for retrieval of the same, including usage of broadcasting. Section 8 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005, which talks about people's right to seek government officials for information,
restricts the disclosure of certain materials. These exclusions are specified in Article 19(2) of India’s
Constitution, which provides the areas for placing reasonable limits on free expression.

GROUNDS FOR RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH AND EXPRESSION FREEDOM

Only a 'Law,' not operative or departmental directives, can impose restrictions on rights under Article
19(1)41. There can be no total or unrestrained freedom. 34 Article 19(2) of the Constitution limits freedom
of speech and expression by allowing the State to impose "reasonable" restrictions on the below-
mentioned grounds:

1. “Sovereignty and integrity of India”- The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 added
India's sovereignty and integrity to clause (2) of Article 19. Freedom of speech can be limited so
that no one can question India's integrity or sovereignty, or promote the secession of any section
of the country from the Union. It's worth noting that sedition is a legal basis for restricting freedom
of speech and expression, yet it's not addressed in clause (2). It was ruled in Debi Soron v.
State of Bihar42 that Sections 124A and 153A of the IPC impose legitimate restrictions for the
sake of public order and are preserved by Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2. “Security of the State”- For the sake of state security, the imposition of reasonable restrictions
on free speech is permissible. The Supreme Court had to examine the meaning of the words'
security of the state' in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras43. The Apex court observed that
there are multiple levels of 'public order' offenses. Every public disturbance cannot be considered
a danger to the state's security. Only noteworthy and aggravated forms of public disturbances,
such as rebellion, waging war against the state, and insurrection, are referred to as 'security of
the state,' and it does not include the ordinary violations of public order and public safety, such as
illegal assembly, riot, and affray. As a result, individual comments or expressions that instigates
or promotes the performance of serious criminal acts, such as rape or murder, are concerns that
would jeopardize the state's security44.
3. “Friendly relations with foreign states”- In 1951, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act
inserted this clause. The purpose of this article is to curb unrestricted hostile propaganda which is
not in favor of a foreign friendly state that might jeopardize India's fine ties with it. It is important to
highlight that member nations of the Commonwealth, including Pakistan, are not considered

41 M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA, 6th edn., 2012, p. 1104.
42 Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898).
43 Supra, n 19.
44 State of Bhar v. Shailabala Devi, MANU/SC/0015/1952.

14
 "foreign states" under this constitution. As a result, restrictions on freedom of speech and
expression cannot be imposed on the basis that the issue is harmful to Pakistan.
4. “Public order”- Public order is an expansive expression that mentions the condition of calm that
persists among affiliates of political society. Consequent to internal restrictions imposed by the
government that this state of tranquility has formed. The phrase 'public order' was absent from
Article 19(2). It was decided that only the grounds stated in that article may be used to impose
limits. The term 'public order' was introduced in Article 19(2) as one of the legitimate criteria for
restricting free speech as a result of this ruling. Public order is disturbed by anything that upsets
public serenity or harmony45. Thus, community disturbances46 and strikes organized solely for
the purpose of generating dissatisfaction among workers47 are violations of public order. Public
order is not always disrupted by simple criticism of the government48. The Union
Government would be able to ban the propaganda being spread by a country that is at war with
India under 'public order.'49
5. “Morality or decency”- The terms "morality" and "decency" have a wide range of meanings. In
the sake of decency and morality, Sections 292-294 of the Indian Penal Code offer examples of
limits on freedom of speech and expression. Obscenity is described as "against modesty or
decency; vulgar, dirty, and disgusting" in India. It said that the "test of obscenity" is whether a
publication, when examined in its entirety, has the ability to debase and morally corrupt those
whose brains are vulnerable to such immoral consequences, and that each piece must be
evaluated independently.
6. “Contempt of court”- If a certain expression guised under freedom of speech goes beyond a
logical and rational extent of free speech and is tantamount to contempt of court, it may be
curbed. The term "contempt of court" is defined as follows under the Contempt of Courts Act of
1971: 'Contempt of court' might be either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt,' as per Section 2
of the said Act. Deliberate disobedience to any judge's decree, judgment, order, directive, writ, or
some other process adopted, or deliberate breach of any direction provided to a court, is referred
to as "civil contempt." 'Criminal contempt' refers to the dissemination of any matter or the
performance of any other conduct, whether by words spoken or written, signs or visible
representations, or otherwise. It includes any act that:
(i) Lowers or tries to lower the authority of any Court,
(ii) Prejudices, impedes or tends to hamper the due process of justice administration; or
(iii) Impedes or obstructs or tends to hamper the administration of justice in any other way.
Honest publication and dissemination of any matter; publication of a full and impartial
report of court proceedings; legitimate criticism of judicial act; grievance against presiding

45 Om Prakash v. Emperor, MANU/NA/0126/1947.

46 Noor Mohammad v. Rex, 1949 CriLJ 131.
47 Supra, n 44.
48 Raj Bahadur Gond v. State of Hyderabad, MANU/SC/0054/1958.
49 Rex v. Amir Hussain, MANU/UP/0122/1940.

15
 judicial officers formed in good faith; publication of reasonable information relating to
court hearings in camera or in chambers are not considered acts of contempt of court.
7. “Defamation”- Defamation is defined as a remark that damages a person's reputation. Exposing
a guy to hatred, mockery, or contempt is what it is all about. The criminal legislation governing
defamation in India is found in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It does not distinguish
between defamatory statements directed at the ears or eyes, or between slander and libel. These
portions have been kept as legitimate limitations on freedom of expression50.
8. “Incitement to an offence”- In 1952, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act was made to
include this ground as well. The right to free speech doesn’t imply the right to urge people to
indulge in criminal activity. The constitutional term 'offence' is not defined. As per the General
Clauses Act, an "offence" is "any act or omission made penal by any legislation in force at the
time." The Court must evaluate whether or not there was incitement based on the evidence and
context of each instance.

CONCLUSION

It is reasonable to argue that the value of free expression is defined by the magnitude to which citizens
may exercise it. The right to free speech is a fundamental civil right. It acts like the rock on which
democratic governance is built. It is also necessary for the democratic process to work properly. Every
person has the right to freely express themselves and put forward their views. Speech is necessary
because it allows a person to communicate his or her ideas, feelings, and sentiments to others. It is a
natural right that a human being receives at birth. As a result, no individual must be deprived of this
fundamental right to free speech.

manupatra articles. respected author Tejaswini kaushal

50 Dr. Suresh Chandra v. Panbit Goala, MANU/WB/0038/1951.

51

16
Historical Background of Freedom of Speech and Expression

Freedom of speech and expression is widely recognized as a cornerstone of democratic societies.

It allows individuals to express opinions, share ideas, criticize authorities, and advocate reforms
without fear of censorship or punishment. The evolution of this right has deep historical roots,
both globally and within India.

Global Evolution

The concept of freedom of speech can be traced back to ancient civilizations:

• Ancient Greece: The idea of parrhesia (free speech) was central in Athenian
democracy. Philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle discussed the moral and
social implications of unrestricted speech.
• England: The 1689 English Bill of Rights granted freedom of speech within
Parliament, laying the groundwork for modern democratic norms. The John Milton's
"Areopagitica" (1644) was one of the earliest works advocating against censorship.
• United States: The First Amendment (1791) to the U.S. Constitution is one of the
most celebrated legal protections of free speech and press, influencing many other
nations’ constitutional frameworks.
• France: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) proclaimed
freedom of opinion and expression as an inalienable right.

Indian Historical Context

Before British Rule

In ancient India, freedom of expression was valued but regulated by societal norms. Religious
and philosophical debates were common:

• Indian scriptures like the Rigveda, Upanishads, and Buddhist texts reflect open
intellectual discourse.
• Universities like Nalanda and Takshashila fostered academic freedom.
• However, social hierarchies, caste systems, and religious dogmas often placed
limitations on who could speak or teach.

During British Colonial Rule

British colonialism curtailed many civil liberties, including free speech:

• Censorship laws were introduced to suppress dissent and criticism of British rule.

17
 • The Vernacular Press Act, 1878 targeted Indian-language newspapers and curbed
nationalist writings.
• The Indian Press Act, 1910 required publishers to deposit security and allowed
confiscation of publications deemed “seditious.”
• Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introduced in 1870, criminalized
sedition and was used to silence leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma
Gandhi.
• Despite these suppressions, the Indian freedom struggle saw the rise of fearless
journalism and fiery speeches from leaders advocating self-rule.

Post-Independence Developments

After gaining independence in 1947, India aimed to ensure that the mistakes of colonial rule
would not repeat:

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, guarantees freedom of

speech and expression to every citizen.
• The Constituent Assembly Debates reveal the deep commitment of leaders like
Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar to uphold this fundamental right.
• However, the freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows the state to impose
"reasonable restrictions" in the interests of public order, decency, morality, security
of the state, etc.

Over time, several landmark judgments have interpreted and expanded this right:

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): First major case to interpret Article
19(1)(a), where the Supreme Court struck down a ban on a journal.
• Bennett Coleman v. Union of India (1973): Upheld the freedom of the press as part
of Article 19(1)(a).
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for
violating free speech on the internet.

Conclusion of the Historical Overview

The freedom of speech and expression in India has evolved through a complex journey from
ancient openness, through colonial suppression, to constitutional protection. This right has been
shaped by philosophical traditions, colonial challenges, and constitutional vision, making it not
only a legal guarantee but a symbol of India’s democratic ethos.

18
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Freedom of the Press today means absence of interference by the Stale with

the Press, except in so far as it is authorised by the Constituion and by laws which are
constitutionally valid.

Need for freedom of the Press.

1. ‘Freedom' means absence of control, interference or restriction. Hence, the expression 'freedom
of the Press' means the right to print and publish without any interference from the State or any
public authoriy. Bul, as will be seen presenly, this freedom, like other freedoms, cannot be
absolute but is subject to well known exceptions acknowledged in the public interest, which in
India are enumerated in Art. 19 of the Constitution.

2. Since, in India, freedom of "expression' is guaranteed by Art. 19(1X(a) of the Constitution,

and it has been held by our Supreme Court' that freedom of the press' is included in that wider
guarantee, it is unnecessary to plead for the freedom of the Press in this country. Never

theless, the principles which lie at the background

relating to the Press. Since its constitutionaliy can be challenged in India, it would be not only
useful but also essential to keep before one's mind's eye the basic and historic principles on
which the demand for freedom of the Press is founded.

3. It is a ‘basic’ human right; and has also been called a ‘preferred’ right

Freedom of the press is essential in a democratic society as it ensures transparency,

accountability, and informed citizenry. It allows journalists to report on government actions,
social issues, and public affairs without fear of censorship or retaliation. A free press acts as a
watchdog, exposing corruption and abuse of power, and gives voice to the marginalized. It also
facilitates public debate, helping citizens make informed decisions. Without press freedom,
democracy weakens, and authoritarianism can rise.

(a) A printed matter records the ideas in a permanent form, which speech cannot.

(b) However larger the audience to a speech may be, a newspaper or book has a larger
circulation than spoken words. Even though in modern times, a newspaper has other
rivals in the realm of media of expression, such as the radio or the television, the morning
daily has still the widest demand in the world, and the most potent medium of mass
communication.

19
What has been said in the U.S.A. is true of all modern democratic countries: "The newspapers,
magazines and other journals of the country have shed and continued to shed more light on the
public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrumentality of publicity 6

(c) As is clear from Art. 19(1)(a) of our Constitution, the Press, as an institution, has no
constitutional or legal privilege. What is known as the freedom of the Press is nothing but the
freedom of expression of every citizen [guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a)] which includes-

(i) the right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public, or the right to impart information
and ideas;
(ii) the right to receive information and ideas from others through any lawful medium.

(d) Historically, the growth and development of representative democracy (as against
absolutism)¹¹ is so much intertwined with the growth of the Press that the Press has come to be
recognised as an institutional limb of modern democracy. Ideologically, the indispensability of
the Press for the proper functioning of democracy is so much embedded in the United States that
Jefferson¹2 once said that if he had to choose between having 'a government without newspapers'
on the one hand and 'newspapers without a government'12 on the other, he would have
nohesitation in preferring the latter. This was the view which the adoption of the first amendment
to the eventually triumphed in

American Constitution, in 1791 abridging the freedom of speech or of the “The Congress shall
make no law press

“Freedom of discussion is essential to enlighten public opinion in a democratic State: it cannot

be curtailed without affecting the right of the public to be informed through sources independent
of the Government concerning matters of public interest “14-15

A democratic political society or government which rests on the consent of the people and the
contribution of their ideas to public questions, 16 can rest only on the free debate and free
exchange of ideas amongst the people, 17 There cannot be any collective decision after mature
deliberation upon any issue unless there is an opportunity for free exchange of views amongst
the participants, which in a representative democracy means the electorate as well as their
representatives assembled in Parliament.

On the one hand, the widest dissemination of information from diverse sources is necessary for
public education, 18-20 which is the foundation of a democratic society. On the other hand, it is
by means of a free discussion 20 and criticism that the government remains responsive to the will
of the people and peaceful change is effected 16 and errors of government are peacefully
corrected and eliminated through the process of popular government.

20
The Need for Limitations on Freedom of Press in India

Freedom of the press is often considered the cornerstone of a democratic society, acting as the
fourth pillar alongside the executive, legislature, and judiciary. In India, this freedom is implicit
within the broader ambit of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to
freedom of speech and expression. However, no freedom is absolute. The Indian press, while
enjoying significant autonomy, is also subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
These limitations are not merely regulatory; they are foundational to maintaining public order,
protecting national sovereignty, and balancing individual rights with collective welfare.

Historical and Legal Rationale

The framers of the Indian Constitution, having witnessed the misuse of media during colonial
times and the trauma of partition, deliberately chose not to grant unqualified press freedom.
Instead, they subjected it to “reasonable restrictions” in the interests of sovereignty, public
order, decency, and the security of the State.

The landmark judgment in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) emphasized that
freedom of the press is essential to a functioning democracy. Yet, the Supreme Court has
consistently upheld that such freedom cannot override the integrity and unity of the nation
(Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Union of India, 1958).

Why Limitations Are Necessary

1. National Security and Sovereignty

In times of war, insurgency, or diplomatic tension, unrestricted press coverage can pose a
threat to national security. For instance, media leaks during the Kargil War or excessive
reporting on anti-terror operations risked revealing sensitive strategies. Hence, the press
must act with restraint to protect sovereign interests.
2. Preventing Communal Tensions
India’s pluralistic society is highly sensitive to communal narratives. Misinformation or
inflammatory reporting, such as during the 2002 Gujarat riots or Muzaffarnagar
violence, can provoke unrest. This justifies pre-emptive censorship or punitive action
under laws like Section 153A IPC and the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act,
1995.
3. Protection Against Defamation and Hate Speech
The rise of sensationalism has led to character assassinations, trial by media, and

21
 violation of privacy. Unregulated media trials, particularly in high-profile cases (e.g.,
Sushant Singh Rajput), undermine the right to fair trial under Article 21. Thus,
limitations ensure accountability and ethical journalism.
4. Fake News and Misinformation
The digital age has blurred the lines between traditional journalism and user-generated
content. The unchecked spread of misinformation, particularly via social media,
necessitates statutory checks like the IT Rules, 2021, which empower oversight bodies to
curb false narratives.
5. Preserving Decency and Morality
Obscene or vulgar content disseminated under the garb of press freedom can degrade
public morality. The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and
Cinematograph Act, 1952 reinforce the State’s obligation to protect cultural ethos and
values.

Striking the Balance

The necessity for limitations must always be balanced against the danger of overreach. Blanket
bans or excessive censorship—such as during The Emergency (1975-77)—can suppress dissent
and erode democratic accountability. The judiciary plays a crucial role in mediating this balance,
evolving doctrines like "proportionality" and "chilling effect" to test the constitutionality of
restrictions.

It is conculded that,

Freedom of the press in India must coexist with the rule of law, social harmony, and national
interest. Limitations are not inherently anti-democratic; rather, they are democratic safeguards to
ensure that the press operates as a responsible and ethical institution. The aim is not to stifle
dissent but to prevent chaos and injustice in the name of liberty. A robust framework that ensures
press freedom along with accountability is indispensable for a mature democratic polity like
India.

22
 Freedom of press and it’s restriction

What does the term "Press Freedom" mean?

Press freedom is a fundamental principle that allows journalists and media
organizations to operate without censorship or government interference. It is a
core component of freedom of expression and is essential for a democratic
society.

Press freedom encompasses the following key aspects:

▪ Freedom from Censorship: Journalists and media outlets should be able

to publish or broadcast news and information without government-
imposed censorship.
▪ Access to Information: A free press should have access to information
and sources to investigate and report on matters of public interest.
▪ Independence: Editorial independence ensures that news reporting is
based on facts and not influenced by outside interests.
▪ Protection of Sources: Journalists should be able to protect their sources
to encourage whistleblowers and informants to come forward with
information without fear of exposure or reprisal.
▪ Pluralism and Diversity: A free press should encompass a diverse
range of viewpoints and opinions, allowing for open debate and
discussion in society.
▪ Accountability: The media should hold those in power accountable by
investigating and reporting on their actions and decisions.

Constitutional Background:

Freedom of the Press is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. However,

Freedom of press or media refers to the rights given by the Constitution of
India under the freedom and expression of speech in Article 19(1)(a). It
encourages independent journalism and promotes democracy by letting the
people voice their opinions for or against the government’s actions.
Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined that
everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.
▪ However, there are certain restrictions in Article 19(2) to protect the
nation and government actions, policies, and decisions, holding
officials accountable for their actions.

23
 ▪ Information Dissemination: It helps citizens stay informed about
current events, government activities, and societal issues, enabling them
to make informed decisions and participate actively in the democratic
process.
▪ Check on Power: A free press acts as a check on the abuse of power by
the government and other powerful entities. It helps uncover corruption,
human rights abuses, and other wrongdoing, making it difficult for those
in authority to act with impunity.
▪ Transparency and Accountability: A free press promotes transparency
in government operations and decision-making processes. It helps
uncover hidden agendas, conflicts of interest, and other factors that may
influence government actions.
its integrity.

What is the Importance of a Free Press for India?

▪ Democracy and Accountability: Journalists investigate and report on

▪ Diverse Voices: India is a diverse country with a multitude of languages,
cultures, and perspectives. A free press provides a platform for diverse
voices and viewpoints, ensuring that the concerns of various communities
are heard.
▪ Protection of Fundamental Rights: A free press is a guardian of
fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression and the right
to know. It helps protect these rights by advocating for the rights of
individuals and groups.
International Standing: India’s reputation on the global stage is influenced by its
commitment to press freedom. Upholding press freedom demonstrates a commitment
to democratic values and human rights, enhancing India’s standing in the international
community.

Which Institutions are Responsible for Protecting Press Freedom in India?

Press Council of India (PCI): The Press Council of India is a statutory body
established under the Press Council Act, 1978. It acts as a watchdog to safeguard and
promote press freedom and the ethical standards of journalism.

▪ Ministry of Information and Broadcasting: The Ministry of

Information and Broadcasting is a government body responsible for
formulating policies and guidelines related to the media sector in India.
▪ News Broadcasters Association (NBA): NBA is a self-regulatory body
representing the private television news and current affairs broadcasters
in India. It formulates and enforces a code of ethics and standards for
television news channels.
▪ Editors Guild of India: This is a voluntary association of editors of leading
newspapers and news magazines in India. It plays a crucial role in defending

24
 press freedom and addressing issues related to the rights and responsibilities
of journalists.
▪ Legal System: India's legal system, including the judiciary, plays a
significant role in upholding press freedom. Courts have the authority to
address violations of press freedom, protect journalists, and interpret laws
related to media.
▪ In 1950, the Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar v. The State of
Madras observed that freedom of the press lay at the foundation of
all democratic organizations.
▪ International Organizations: International organizations such
as Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect
Journalists (CPJ) monitor press freedom in India and raise awareness about
violations on the global stage.

What are the Challenges associated with Press Freedom in India?

▪ Legal and Regulatory Constraints: India has laws that can be used to
restrict press freedom, such as defamation laws, sedition laws, and laws
related to national security. These laws are sometimes used to intimidate
journalists and media organizations.
▪ Government Interference: There have been instances of government
interference in the editorial independence of media
outlets. Governments may use advertising budgets as a tool to reward
or punish media organizations, which can influence their reporting.
▪ Threats and Violence: Journalists in India often face physical threats
and violence, especially when reporting on sensitive issues like
corruption, organized crime, or communal tensions. Some journalists
have been attacked or even killed in the line of duty.
▪ Self-Censorship: Due to fear of reprisals or pressure from various
sources, journalists and media outlets may engage in self-censorship,
avoiding certain topics or taking a cautious approach to reporting.
▪ Ownership and Control: Media ownership in India is often
concentrated in the hands of a few powerful entities, which can influence
editorial decisions and limit the diversity of voices in the media
landscape.
▪ Defamation Lawsuits: Journalists and media organizations in India are
frequently targeted with defamation lawsuits, which can be time-
consuming and financially burdensome.

What Measures can be Taken to Ensure a Free and Impartial

Press in India?

▪ Strengthen Legal Protections:

25
 o Reform laws that can be misused to restrict press freedom,
such as defamation and sedition laws.
o Ensure swift and fair legal processes in cases involving
press freedom violations.
▪ Independent Regulatory Framework:
o Establish independent media regulatory bodies with
members representing a cross-section of society, ensuring
that they are free from government control and political
influence.
▪ Protect Journalists and Whistleblowers:
o Enact and enforce laws that protect journalists from
harassment, violence, and threats, both online and offline.
o Establish mechanisms to protect whistleblowers who
provide information to the media in the public interest.
▪ Promote Transparency:
o Enact robust freedom of information or access to information laws
to promote transparency and enable journalists to access
government information.
o Promote transparency in media ownership to prevent media
concentration and conflicts of interest..
• Public Broadcasting Independence:
o Ensure the independence of public broadcasting institutions from
government control and influence.
o Appoint qualified and impartial boards to oversee public
broadcasters, and ensure their funding is secure and nonpartisan.
• Promote Journalistic Ethics:
o Encourage media organizations to adhere to a code of ethics that
emphasizes accuracy, fairness, and balanced reporting.
o Support professional development and training for journalists to
maintain high ethical standards.
o Raise public awareness about the importance of a free and impartial
press in a democratic society.
• International Cooperation:
o Collaborate with international organizations, such as UNESCO and
international press freedom groups, to promote press freedom and
share best practices.
o The UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists aims to create a
free and safe environment for journalists and media workers.
Conclusion

26
Addressing the issue of press freedom in India will require a concerted
effort from various stakeholders, with a shared commitment to upholding
the principles of a free press in a democratic society. It is a complex
challenge that needs continuous attention and action to ensure a vibrant
and independent media environment in the country.
Respected Source – dristhi ias (press freedom in India) 11 Oct 2023
www.dristhiias.com

27
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India is AIR 2015 SC 1523 Background
The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) deals with the
constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This
provision criminalized the sending of “offensive” messages through
communication service, which was broadly defined. Shreya Singhal, a petitioner,
challenged the provision on grounds of it being unconstitutional for violating
fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression)
and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

Issues.

• 1. Whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is

unconstitutional for violating the right to freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
• 2. Whether the provision is overly vague and prone to misuse, thereby
infringing upon the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution

Observation:

The Supreme Court observed that Section 66A was excessively broad and vague,
which led to a chilling effect on free speech. The terms “offensive” and
“menacing” were not defined clearly, giving wide discretion to authorities and
leading to potential misuse. The Court noted that the provision was not in
consonance with the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and
expression, as it did not meet the reasonable restrictions test. The Court
emphasized that while the state has a legitimate interest in regulating
communication, the regulation must not be excessively broad or infringe upon
fundamental freedoms in an arbitrary manner. The Court also noted that the
vagueness of Section 66A could lead to arbitrary and inconsistent application,
which is contrary to the principles of legality and fair notice.

Decision

The Supreme Court declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act,
2000, unconstitutional and struck it down. The Court held that the provision was
violative of Article 19(1)(a) and did not satisfy the test of “reasonable
restrictions” under Article 19(2). This judgment affirmed the importance of
protecting free speech and

Expression while also establishing that any restrictions imposed should be

precise and not open to arbitrary interpretation

28
Romesh Thapar v State of Madras (1950) sc 124

Freedom of the press is an essential component of a thriving democracy and this

right is not limited to newspapers but to other vehicles of information flow also.
In this day and age, it can be argued that such a right extends to expressing
opinions on various digital platforms without fear of repercussions. In the case of
Indian Express newspapers v.

Union of India, the apex court has made the following observations:

The expression “freedom of press” has not been used in Article 19 but it is
comprehended within Article 19(1)(a). The expression means freedom from
interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with the
content and circulation of newspapers… Freedom of press is the heart of social
and political

Intercourse. It is the primary duty of the courts to uphold the freedom of press
and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it contrary
to the constitutional mandate.

The press Is often described as the fourth estate and rightly so, thus the freedom
of the press is one of the most cherished rights in a truly democratic setup. It is
this freedom that allows the press to bring to the common citizen the failings
that are committed by people who serve in the echelons of governance. The
freedom of press extends not only to the content that is published and
propagated but also to the volume of information that is to be circulated.

In the course of several decades since the Constitution was adopted, the Supreme
Court has always acted in a manner that errs on the side of safeguarding the
rights of the press and several landmark judgements in this respect are a
testimony to the earnest effort of the Court. The earliest case which dealt directly
with the rights of a free press was the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of
Madras.

Background of the case

The petitioner Mr. Thapar was a well-known communist of his time and was very
sceptical of the policies of the then Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru,
especially his foreign policy.

• He published a few articles in his weekly English magazine called

Crossroads that expressed his scepticism in this regard.
• As he was writing these articles, a communist movement was gathering
steam in parts of Madras and the authorities felt that the petitioner’s

29
 articles will not be helpful with regard to stopping the enthusiasm among
the members of the said communist movement.
• In the month of March 1950, the Government of Madras by virtue of an
order imposed a ban on the entry and circulation of the magazine in these
areas.

• The order was issued pursuant to Section 9(1-A) of the Madras

Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 which empowered the
government to prohibit the circulation, sale or distribution of the journal
in certain parts of the province of Madras for the purpose of ensuring
‘public safety’ or preserving ‘public order.’

• Aggrieved by this government order Mr. Thapar approached the Supreme

Court with the contention that the impugned order infringed upon his
fundamental right to free speech and expression.

Issues before the Court

• The issue that the Court was to adjudicate upon was whether the order
under Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act was
in violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution or did it fall within the
restrictions provided in Article 19(2).
•
• The Court also had to determine whether the impugned provision was
void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution by virtue of it being in
violation of the fundamental right of free speech and expression.

• The Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State of Madras also
raised an additional issue whereby he argued that the petitioner has to
first approach the High Court under Article 226 and only when he had
exhausted that remedy, he could bring his grievances to the Supreme
Court.

Romesh Thapar Case Ruling

With reference to the issue of approaching the High Court first, the Court held
that the two

30
Remedies i.e., to approach the High Court and to approach the Supreme court
were analogous in nature and that the petitioner was free to approach the
Supreme Court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights without
approaching the High Court first.

The Court, while ruling on the validity of the impugned order that banned the
entry and

Circulation of the weekly magazine into certain parts of Madras, held that the
freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas that
can only be ensured by circulation.

The Court ruled that It was clear that the impugned order passed was in
violation of Article 19(1)

(a) Unless Section 9(1-A) of the impugned Act is saved by the reservation
provided for in Article 19(2).

The Court In order to ascertain the validity of Section 9(1-A) delved deep into the
origins of the impugned Act, which lay in the Government of India Act of 1935
and the Constituent Assembly debates.

The Court finally Invoked the Doctrine of Severability whereby it is seen whether
severing or

Removing a provision from legislation changes the legislative intent behind the
enactment and if not, the impugned provision may be declared invalid.

After applying the rule of severability to Section 9(1-A) of the impugned Act, the
majority held it to be void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution and thus ultra
vires as it was inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

Justice Fazal Ali however in his dissenting opinion held that maintenance of
peace and

Tranquillity was an integral part of maintaining state security, thus contending

that the impugned Act imposed reasonable restriction on the freedom of Speech
and Expression.

It Is conculded that,*

It has to be noted that this judgement came during the phase while post-
constitutional India was still in its nascent stage. But the rationale behind this
judgement set a healthy precedent both in terms of protecting press freedom and
defining the scope of reasonable restrictions on the

Fundamental rights as provided in Part III of the Constitution. The Court by

putting restrictions on the powers of the State to interfere with individual rights

31
paved the way for other judgements that championed the cause of the individual
against the might of the State which further led to immense confidence among
the masses in the high levels of integrity among the judicial branch of the
government.

Reacting to this judgment, the Parliament amended the Constitution in 1951. 1st
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951 added ‘Public Order’ as a reasonable
restriction under 19(2) on the

32
Hamdard Dawakhana v Union of India

Fact

The petitioners, Hamdard Dawakhana, a well-known manufacturer of Unani medicines,

contested the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 under
Article 32 of the Constitution. Their argument was that the Act’s restrictions on advertising their
products, which were widely recognised under the Unani system of medicine, violated their
fundamental rights.

The petitioners received a notice on 4 December 1958 from the Drugs Controller stating that
their advertisements were in violation of Section 3 of the Act.

The Controller ordered a halt to the sale of forty products that were mentioned in the petition and
demanded the return of products sent to Bombay and other states.

The petitioners argued that their products had traditional recognition, and the Act’s prohibition
on their advertisement interfered with their right to trade and free speech.

The respondents (Union of India) countered that the Act was necessary to prevent the public
from self-medicating and causing harm due to exaggerated and misleading advertisements. They
claimed that such advertisements misled people into believing in false cures, encouraging self-
medication without professional consultation.Legal Issues Raised

The key Issues in Hamdard Dawakhana versus Union of India

Is the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 unconstitutional?

Do the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) apply to advertisements?

Does the Act impose unjustified and excessive limitations on constitutional rights?

Does the Act grant the executive unchecked power to regulate advertising?

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioners, Hamdard Dawakhana, raised the following key contentions:

Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Act infringed their right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a), their right to practise any profession or carry on trade or
business under Article 19(1)(g), and their right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property under
Article 19(1)(f).

Discrimination & Unjustified Restrictions: The Act was discriminatory as it targeted certain
types of advertisements while allowing others, thereby violating Article 14 (right to equality).

33
Recognised Medicinal Value: The medicines in question used Unani nomenclature, which had
been acknowledged globally for centuries. The Act’s prohibition on their advertisement unfairly
hindered their business.

Lack of Justification: The Act did not establish a direct and immediate threat to public health,
making its restrictions unreasonable

Arguments of the Respondent

The Union of India argued in defence of the Act, stating:

Need for Public Protection: The government had a duty to protect citizens from misleading
claims. The petitioners’ advertisements encouraged self-medication, which had serious public
health risks.

Advertisements Are Not Pure Speech: The primary objective of commercial advertisements is
trade and commerce, not the propagation of ideas, and therefore, they do not enjoy absolute
protection under Article 19(1)(a).

Prevention of Exploitation: The law sought to curb the exploitation of vulnerable individuals
by preventing misleading drug advertisements.

Reasonable Restrictions Apply: The right to free speech is not absolute and can be curtailed
under Article 19(2) in the interest of public health and safety.

Hamdard Dawakhana v Union of India Judgement

On 18 December 1959, the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict in Hamdard Dawakhana
vs Union of India. The Court held that commercial advertisements do not enjoy full
constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a).

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

Advertisements as Speech: The Court agreed that an advertisement is a form of speech, but not
all forms of speech fall within the essential concept of free expression.

Commercial Speech is Limited: The Court ruled that advertisements aimed solely at promoting
trade and commerce are not protected speech. The propagation of ideas is essential to free
speech, but purely commercial content does not serve this function.

Prevention of Harm: The Court acknowledged that misleading advertisements could cause
harm by encouraging people to use unverified remedies, justifying government regulation.

Delegation of Power: The delegation of power under the Act was considered too broad and was
struck down as “uncontrolled and uncanalised”, exceeding the bounds of permissible delegation.

Based on these findings, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and ruled that the
restriction on misleading advertisements was valid.

34
 1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

Citation: AIR 1950 SC 124

Facts: The weekly journal Cross Roads, edited by Romesh Thappar, was banned in the State of
Madras under public order grounds.

Issue: Whether the ban violated Article 19(1)(a).

Decision: The Supreme Court held that unless a law restricting speech is covered by Article
19(2), it is unconstitutional.
Significance: It was the first case where the Court declared the primacy of free speech in a
democracy, emphasizing that vague reasons like “public safety” are insufficient without express
legal sanction.

2. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950)

Citation: AIR 1950 SC 129

Facts: A newspaper was required to submit all content for pre-censorship before publication.

Issue: Was pre-censorship constitutional?

Decision: Pre-censorship was struck down as a direct violation of Article 19(1)(a).

Significance: The case reinforced freedom of the press, and declared that prior restraint is
generally impermissible in a democratic society.

3. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973)

Citation: AIR 1973 SC 106

Facts: The government restricted the number of pages newspapers could print due to a shortage
of newsprint.

Issue: Whether the policy violated Article 19(1)(a).

35
Decision: The Court held that the policy indirectly restricted free speech and was not a
reasonable restriction.

Significance: It protected the economic freedom of the press, ruling that the right to publish
includes adequate space to convey content.

4. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985)

Citation: AIR 1986 SC 515

Facts: Newspapers challenged the imposition of custom duty on newsprint.

Issue: Whether such economic policies burdened press freedom.

Decision: The Court stated economic control must not lead to content control, and any indirect
suppression of press freedom violates Article 19(1)(a).

Significance: Press freedom was recognized as vulnerable to economic manipulation, and the
State was asked to act cautiously in such matters.

5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597

Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded “in public interest” without due process.

Issue: Whether this action violated Article 21 and her right to expression.

Decision: The Supreme Court held that any restriction must be just, fair, and reasonable, linking
Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Significance: The case expanded the scope of Article 19(1)(a) by emphasizing that free speech
includes the right to know and be informed.

6. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)

36
Citation: AIR 1989 SC 622

Facts: A Tamil film was denied release on the ground that it might provoke caste tensions.

Issue: Can freedom of expression be curtailed due to anticipated public unrest?

Decision: The Court ruled that free expression cannot be suppressed unless there is imminent
danger.

Significance: Reinforced the principle that mere threat of violence cannot justify censorship;
reasonable restrictions must meet a high threshold.

7. Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995)

Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1236

Facts: The Cricket Association of Bengal wanted to broadcast a cricket match but was denied
access to Doordarshan.

Issue: Does the right to broadcast fall under free speech?

Decision: Yes. The Court held that the right to communicate through media like television is part
of free speech.

Significance: Recognized a citizen’s right to receive information, and state control over media
must be neutral and fair.

8. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1523

Facts: Section 66A of the IT Act criminalized sending offensive messages online.

Issue: Was this provision vague and violative of Article 19(1)(a)?

Decision: The Court struck down Section 66A, calling it unconstitutional due to its vagueness
and chilling effect on speech.

37
Significance: Landmark case that protected online freedom of speech and curbed excessive State
power in cyberspace.

9. K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970)

Citation: AIR 1971 SC 481

Facts: A film was denied a ‘U’ certificate due to its depiction of real-life social issues.

Issue: Does film censorship violate free expression?

Decision: The Court upheld the validity of censorship, but stated it must be exercised reasonably
and with guidelines.

Significance: Balanced freedom of expression and public morality, acknowledging films as an

important medium of expression.

10. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 637

Facts: Following the abrogation of Article 370, internet services were shut down indefinitely in
Jammu & Kashmir.

Issue: Is internet shutdown violative of freedom of speech?

Decision: The Court ruled that freedom of speech includes access to the internet, and indefinite
suspension is not permissible.

Significance: For the first time, digital access was recognized as fundamental to Article 19(1)(a).

38
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.:

AIR 1986 SC 515; (1985) 1 SCC 641

Facts of the Case:

• The petitioners were various newspaper publishing companies, including Indian

Express, who challenged the imposition of import duty on newsprint and a
customs policy change that restricted the import and allocation of newsprint
under a quota system.
• They argued that these fiscal restrictions were a disguised method of controlling
the press, thereby violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees
freedom of speech and expression.
• It was also alleged that differential treatment of newspapers based on circulation
size and content amount to indirect censorship.

Issues Raised:

1. Whether economic policies (like customs duty or control orders on newsprint)

violate the freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a).
2. Whether such restrictions amounted to indirect interference with editorial
freedom and free expression.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court upheld the importance of press freedom, stating that
freedom of the press is part of the freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19(1)(a).
• The Court acknowledged that although the State has the power to levy duties and
taxes, these should not be used as tools to restrict or control the freedom of the
press.
• The reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) do not permit economic
strangulation of media or manipulation of access to publishing resources like
newsprint.

39
 • The policy was not completely struck down, but the Court issued guidelines
emphasizing the need for fairness, non-discrimination, and non-interference
with editorial policies.

Key Observations:

• "The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and
opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible
judgments."
• "Any measure that restricts or curtails the circulation or content of a newspaper
must be viewed with suspicion."

Significance:

• The case reinforced the link between economic freedom and freedom of
expression, especially in the context of press functioning.
• It remains a foundational judgment on the indirect methods of curbing free
speech, such as through taxation, supply restrictions, or discriminatory policy
frameworks.
• It emphasized that freedom of speech is not only about what is said, but also the
medium through which it is expressed, including newspapers and other forms of
media.

40
Conclusion

The right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution, forms the lifeblood of any democratic polity. It is both a natural and constitutional
right that enables individuals to freely articulate their ideas, challenge power, and contribute to
the shaping of public opinion. Throughout this research, it has become evident that the exercise
of this freedom is not absolute but exists within a framework of reasonable restrictions under
Article 19(2), balancing individual liberty with public order, decency, morality, and national
interest.

The freedom of the press, while not separately mentioned in the Constitution, is an essential part
of the broader ambit of free speech. The judiciary has consistently interpreted it as a vital
institution to ensure transparency, accountability, and the dissemination of information. Yet, the
press too is subject to the same constitutional limitations, which often result in friction between
state control and journalistic autonomy. The growing use of sedition laws, arbitrary internet
shutdowns, and indirect economic pressures on media houses reflect an emerging trend of
curtailed press freedom, often under the guise of public safety or national integrity.

Furthermore, while the digital age has expanded avenues for expression through social media
and alternative platforms, it has also introduced new challenges such as hate speech,
misinformation, and cyberbullying. These demand nuanced legal and ethical responses that
preserve the sanctity of free speech while protecting vulnerable groups and maintaining societal
harmony.

Ultimately, the key lies in preserving a dynamic equilibrium—where free speech thrives without
degenerating into anarchy, and restrictions operate as safeguards, not instruments of suppression.
A robust democracy must ensure that dissent is not merely tolerated but valued, and that the state
does not wield its regulatory power to stifle legitimate criticism. As India continues to evolve
socially and politically, a vigilant civil society, an independent judiciary, and a responsible media
will be the cornerstones of preser.

41
Suggestion regarding improvements
1. Clearer Definition of Reasonable Restrictions

The phrase “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution is

broad and subject to varying interpretations. There is a need to lay down clearer
legislative or judicial guidelines to prevent misuse by authorities.,

2. Awareness and Legal Literacy Programs

The public, especially students and marginalized communities, must be educated

about their right to freedom of speech and expression. The State and educational
institutions should promote awareness campaigns and legal literacy drives.

3. Strengthening Institutional Safeguards

Regulatory bodies like the Press Council of India, National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC), and others should be empowered with greater autonomy
and accountability to monitor violations effectively.

4. Promoting Responsible Use of Digital Platforms

With the rise of social media, there is a growing need to balance free expression
with the prevention of hate speech and misinformation. Policies should
encourage self-regulation, media ethics, and fact-checking mechanisms without
curbing genuine dissent.

5. Judicial Training and Fast-track Courts

Specialized training for judicial officers and setting up fast-track courts for cases
related to violation of speech rights can ensure timely justice and promote a
culture of accountability.

6. Protecting Whistleblowers and Journalists

Whistleblowers and independent journalists play a crucial role in a democracy.

Stronger legal protections should be provided to ensure their safety and freedom
to report without fear of retribution.

7. Codification of Hate Speech Laws

The current laws on hate speech are scattered and vague. There should be a
comprehensive, well-defined statute that clearly distinguishes between free
speech and hate speech, ensuring both protection of expression and social
harmony.

8. Media Regulation through Independent Bodies

Rather than state-controlled censorship, the formation of independent media
regulation boards should be encouraged to ensure transparency, prevent
sensationalism, and protect journalistic freedom.

42
1
9. State-Level Freedom of Expression Index
States should introduce an annual “Freedom of Expression Index” that rates
public institutions and local governance based on transparency, press freedom,
citizen grievances, and legal actions against expression.

10. Training Police & Public Servants on Free Speech Laws

Many arrests under speech-related offences happen due to a lack of legal
understanding among enforcement agencies. Mandatory legal education
workshops should be organized for police and civil servants on citizens' rights
under Article 19(1)(a).

11. Encouraging Academic Freedom

Academic freedom should be protected and promoted, ensuring scholars and
researchers can express diverse viewpoints without fear of censorship,
harassment, or institutional retaliation.

43
2
 References
Books

1. M.P. Jain – Indian Constitutional Law

o Comprehensive and authoritative book on constitutional law including
Article 19(1)(a).
o Great for understanding case law, historical development, and limitations.
2. H.M. Seervai – Constitutional Law of India
o Deep legal insights into fundamental rights and landmark judgments.
3. Durga Das Basu – Introduction to the Constitution of India
o Widely cited textbook explaining fundamental rights and constitutional
interpretation.
4. Justice Aharon Barak – Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations
o Excellent for understanding reasonable restrictions and global perspectives.
5. Madhavi Goradia Divan – Facets of Media Law
o Covers press freedom and speech issues in media law.

Research Papers / Journals

A Bird's Eye View of the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression in India
(Tejaswini Kaushal) https://articles.manupatra.com/index.html Feb 16, 2023

1. "Freedom of Speech and Expression under the Indian Constitution"

– by Shreya Atrey, NALSAR Law Review
– Available on: HeinOnline or SSRN
2. "Freedom of the Press and Expression in India: A Critical Legal Analysis"
– Journal of Constitutional Law and Jurisprudence
– Accessible on Manupatra or SCC Online
3. "The Right to Free Speech in the Digital Era"
– Published in NUJS Law Review
– Visit: https://nujslawreview.org
4. Law Commission of India Reports
– Especially the 267th Report on Hate Speech
– Website: https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in

Websites (Trustworthy Legal & Academic)

1. PRS Legislative Research

o https://prsindia.org
2. LiveLaw and Bar & Bench

44
 o https://www.livelaw.in
o https://www.barandbench.com
3. Indian Kanoon
o https://indiankanoon.org
o For judgments, statutes, and analysis (especially landmark cases).
4. Supreme Court of India
o https://main.sci.gov.in
o Original judgments and constitutional bench decisions.
5. SCC Online (Subscription-based)
o https://www.scconline.com

Case Law (With Citation Examples)

1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124

2. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106
3. Hamdard dawakhana vs union of India
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
5. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515

Other sources
Dheya judiciary website
Dristhi ias website
Chat gpt AI (Artificial intelligence)for word formating and paraphrasing

Citation Styles
Bluebook (20th/21st Edition)

45