Font size:
Print
India’s Free Speech Debate
Mahmudabad case and constitutional responsibility
Context: Any serious discussion on freedom of speech in India must begin with the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, introduced in 1951 by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
More on News
- Often revered as the champion of constitutional values, Nehru’s decision to amend Article 19(2) marked a foundational shift — from prioritising individual liberties to enforcing state control in the name of public order.
How the First Amendment Redefined Free Speech in India
- Before Amendment: Before the amendment, Article 19(2) allowed only narrow restrictions on free speech — defamation, contempt of court, and threats to state security.
- Early court rulings reflected a robust defence of free expression, often thwarting government efforts to suppress dissent.
- Expansion of Restrictions: However, facing increasing political pressure and unrest, Nehru’s government expanded the grounds for restricting speech to include: Public order, Friendly relations with foreign states, Incitement to an offence, Morality and decency.
- Legitimised Censorship: This significant legal expansion legitimised censorship and state control, laying the foundation for recurring challenges to freedom of expression in India even today.
- It marked a clear transition from a liberal model to one centred on national stability and societal control.
Freedom of Speech and the Indian Constitution
The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The State can impose restrictions on free speech in the interest of: Sovereignty and integrity of India, Security of the State, Friendly relations with foreign States, Public order, Decency or morality, Contempt of court, Defamation, Incitement to an offence.
Key Judicial Cases on Freedom of Speech in India
- Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech includes the freedom to propagate ideas. Restrictions must be justified under Article 19(2).
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for being vague and violating free speech.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 19(1)(a), linking it with personal liberty (Article 21).
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): The Court held that freedom of speech includes the right to the internet, subject to proportionality.
Political Double Standard on Free Speech
- Political Convenience: Leaders champion free expression while in opposition but curtail it when in power — a duality that weakens democratic credibility.
- Inconsistently Applied: Whether through absolutist rhetoric or selective suppression, free speech loses meaning when inconsistently applied.
Judiciary’s Role and Contemporary Challenges
- In recent judgments, the Indian judiciary has highlighted the importance of balancing freedom with responsibility.
- Justice Surya Kant, addressing a case involving a professor’s social media post, cautioned against exploiting national crises for political gains, urging responsible public discourse.
- This sentiment resonates with the experience of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has been a target of vitriolic attacks for over two decades — labeled with terms like “maut ka saudagar”, “coward”, and “neech”.
- While institutions have held firm, these episodes underscore the need for a consistent and principled defense of speech, regardless of political affiliation.
Historical Precedents of Censorship and Hypocrisy
- India’s political history is replete with contradictions:
- The Emergency (1975–77) witnessed systematic suppression of media and dissent.
- The Aseem Trivedi cartoon case (2012) exposed the fragility of artistic freedom.
- Controversial NCERT textbook content on Dr. B. R. Ambedkar revealed ideological manipulation in education.
- These events remind us that no party has a clean record on protecting civil liberties.
- Free speech cannot be monopolised or weaponised — it must be safeguarded as a non-negotiable democratic right.
Global Context: Democracy and the Crisis of Liberalism
- Across the world, from London to Washington, DC, liberal democracies are under strain.
- Political theorist Francis Fukuyama, who once predicted the triumph of liberalism, has since acknowledged the fragility of democratic norms.
- The pressing question today: Who genuinely upholds liberal values, and to what end?
- In this light, John Stuart Mill’s classic warning in On Liberty feels urgent: “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.”
In a diverse and evolving democracy like India, safeguarding speech requires more than slogans. It calls for constitutional responsibility, political honesty, and inclusive platforms for all voices — especially those from the margins.
