Unlawful Surveillance: Exposure of Government's Unsavory Tactics Revealed
In the vibrant democratic landscape of India, the right to free speech and expression has been a cornerstone of the nation's identity since the adoption of the Constitution in 1950. This article delves into the significant court cases that have defined and expanded this fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court's decision in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) set a precedent by striking down a ban on the journal *Cross Roads*, asserting that any restriction on free speech must remain within the permissible limits outlined in Article 19(2). In the same period, the Court also established that prior restraints on publication violated the freedom of speech and press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) in the case of Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950).
The AK Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, while primarily about preventive detention, touched upon the limitations of Article 19 rights, including free speech. The Court distinguished between fundamental right protections and lawful restrictions such as imprisonment.
Post the Emergency period (1975-77), which severely curtailed press freedom, the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) v. Union of India (1984) case reaffirmed press freedoms under the umbrella of Article 19(1)(a). The case is often cited as a significant milestone in the re-establishment of press freedoms in India.
The Supreme Court has situated the freedom of press within Article 19(1)(a) even though the term "freedom of press" is not explicitly in the text. Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions on free speech, which courts have interpreted and tested in many cases to balance state interests and individual rights.
In recent years, the scope of freedom of speech has expanded to include spoken and written word, expression through images, electronic media, and even the right to silence. The right to internet access is now considered a fundamental right in India, as established in cases such as Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) and Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala.
However, the state can impose "reasonable restrictions" on these freedoms based on several grounds, including sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offense. Criminal defamation is punishable under Indian law, with penalties including simple imprisonment for up to two years, monetary fines, or both.
Hate speech is subject to reasonable restrictions by the state as per Article 19(2) and is prohibited under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other acts such as Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.
In the digital age, the balance between free speech and reasonable restrictions continues to be tested. In 2015, the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case declared Section 66A (arrest individuals for online content deemed "offensive,") of the Information Technology Act unconstitutional.
As India recorded 116 internet shutdowns in 2023, the highest number for the sixth consecutive year, the implications of these reasonable restrictions on free speech and the right to internet access have become increasingly apparent. The economic cost of these shutdowns amounted to $585.4 million in the year 2023.
The United Nations human rights experts have stated that using communications 'kill switches' (i.e. shutting down entire parts of communications systems) can never be justified under human rights law. The longest shutdown in a democracy, lasting 552 days, occurred in Jammu and Kashmir.
These cases form the backbone of judicial interpretation and expansion of free speech protections in India, often balancing the need for reasonable restrictions against the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. The evolving landscape of free speech in India continues to be shaped by these landmark judgments and the ongoing dialogue between the judiciary, the government, and the citizens.
In the context of education-and-self-development and personal-growth, continuous learning about the evolving landscape of free speech in India is essential, as significant court cases like the Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) and the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) have expanded the scope of freedom of speech to include written and electronic media, as well as the right to internet access.
However, it's also crucial to understand that this right is not absolute and is subject to examination under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, which allows for reasonable restrictions on free speech for various reasons, such as public order, morality, or defamation. This examination process is part of the learning journey and personal growth, contributing to a deeper understanding of the balance between individual rights and state interests in India's democratic society.
