Constitutional Values and

Fundamental Duties
Project Work

SUBMITTED BY:
Soham Khare (22BC302)
Nidhish Dhoundiyal (22BC717)
Aryan Agarwal (22BC771)
Garv Vijhani (22BC457)
Divyansh Rathore (22BC281)
Aashi Sharma (22BC315)
Aditya Rawat (22BC594)
Ayush Gupta (22BC440)
Dikshit Batra (22BC251)
SECTION H / B.COM HONS / SEMESTER 2 Praveen Bhatia (22BC038)
Validity of Freedom Of Speech in India with
respect to restrictions under Article 19 (2)

HYPOTHESIS
The research aims to explore the validity of freedom of speech in India in light of the
restrictions outlined under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It is hypothesized that
respondents will recognize the importance of the restrictions specified under Article
19(2) in preserving the constitutional goal of freedom of speech, with a substantial
proportion expressing agreement or strong agreement.
The hypothesis suggests that respondents will believe that the restrictions on
freedom of speech in India strike a balance between protecting individual rights and
maintaining social harmony, although there may be some variation in opinions.

Moreover, respondents' confidence in the impartial implementation of the

restrictions on freedom of speech under Article 19(2) in India is expected to vary, with
a range of responses from low to high levels of confidence. The hypothesis proposes
that respondents will have differing views on whether the restrictions on freedom of
speech should differ based on the medium of expression, and whether regulations on
political speech during election periods are necessary for fair and transparent
campaigns. It is anticipated that respondents will express diverse opinions on
whether the restrictions adequately safeguard the rights and dignity of marginalized
communities. Lastly, it is hypothesized that respondents will perceive the need for
periodic review and revision of the restrictions to ensure their relevance and
alignment with evolving societal dynamics. The research will provide valuable
insights into the perceptions and opinions of individuals regarding the validity of
freedom of speech in India within the framework of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

MODE OF RESEARCH AND DATA COLLECTION

The research project employed an online survey as the primary mode of data
collection, utilizing a structured questionnaire to gather responses from individuals
who had expressed an interest in matters related to the constitution of India.

The targeted approach aimed to explore their perspectives on the validity of freedom
of speech in India with respect to the restrictions outlined under Article 19(2). By
utilizing the online survey method, the research aimed to collect a diverse range of
perspectives and opinions, providing valuable insights into the topic. The collected
data served as the basis for the analysis and findings presented in the research
report.

LINK FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE LINK FOR THE RESPONSES

 FREEDOM OF SPEECH
1. INTRODUCTION
A democratic society is built on the
foundational human right of freedom of
speech. It includes the freedom to voice
thoughts without worrying about being
silenced or facing reprisals. The purpose of
this paper is to examine the relevance of
free speech, including its rewards,
drawbacks, and role in sustaining
democratic ideals.
Importance of Freedom of Speech:
a) Supporting Democracy: People can
participate in public discourse, participate
in political discussions, and voice divergent
viewpoints thanks to freedom of speech. It
ensures a functional democratic system
and cultivates knowledgeable citizens.
b) Protection of Human Rights: Human
rights including freedom of association,
thought, and conscience are connected
with the right to free speech. It encourages
people to speak up for their rights and fight
against injustices.
c) Supporting Innovation and development:
By fostering innovation, creativity, and
information sharing, open expression of
ideas supports intellectual and scientific
development. It makes it possible for
societies to change, advance, and overcome
obstacles.
DIKSHIT
Benefits of Free Speech:
a) vibrant Public Debate: Free speech
promotes inclusive and vibrant public
debates by allowing a wide range of
voices to be heard. It enables the
investigation of different viewpoints,
resulting in more informed decision-
making processes.
b) Accountability and Transparency:
Having the freedom to question and
scrutinize those in authority fosters
transparency and makes people,
institutions, and governments
responsible for their deeds.
c) Social and Cultural Development:
Expression of cultural, religious, and
minority identities is made possible by
freedom of speech, which promotes
social cohesion, multiculturalism, and
heritage preservation.
Challenges and Restrictions:
a) Hate expression and Incitement to
Violence: It can be difficult to strike a
balance between the right to free
expression and the responsibility to
prevent harm to others. Hate speech
and violence instigation provide
intricate moral conundrums that
demand serious thought.
01
b) Fake News and Disinformation: The Conclusion
spread of false information puts the
right to free speech at jeopardy. It's Freedom of speech is a fundamental
critical to strike a balance between right that underpins democratic
eradicating misleading information and societies. It enables citizens to
protecting the right to freedom of participate actively, promotes
expression. accountability, and fosters social
c) Online Platforms and Moderation: As progress. However, it is essential to
online platforms gain sway, discussions navigate the challenges associated with
about content moderation guidelines balancing free expression and protecting
have erupted. A constant debate and individuals from harm. Upholding
open procedures are needed to strike a freedom of speech requires ongoing
balance between protecting the right to dialogue, respect for differing
free expression and dealing with viewpoints, and a commitment to
harmful content. democratic principles, ensuring that
diverse voices can thrive in a pluralistic
The importance of freedom of speech in society.
democracies:

a) Pluralism and tolerance: Freedom of

expression promotes tolerance and
pluralism by allowing different
viewpoints to coexist. It encourages
communication between individuals
while dispelling stereotypes and
fostering understanding.
b) Peaceful Resolution of
disagreements: Freedom of speech
promotes societal cohesion and the
peaceful resolution of disagreements by
providing a forum for discussion and
negotiation.
c) Minority Rights Protection:
Maintaining minority groups' rights
requires freedom of speech. It
strengthens underrepresented voices
and ensures their issues are heard and
contributes to more inclusive society
2. RESTRICTIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 19 (2)
Introduction:
Freedom of speech and expression is a
fundamental right enshrined in the
Indian Constitution under Article 19(1)(a).
However, this right is not absolute and is
subject to reasonable restrictions
outlined in Article 19(2). This research
piece delves into the sub-topic of
"Restrictions under Article 19(2)" to
analyze the validity and implications of
these restrictions on freedom of speech
in India.

DIKSHIT 02
Understanding Article 19(2):
Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution
empowers the State to impose
reasonable restrictions on the exercise
of freedom of speech and expression on
certain grounds. These grounds include
the sovereignty and integrity of India,
security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign countries, public order,
decency, morality, contempt of court,
defamation, and incitement to an
offense. These restrictions aim to strike
a balance between the exercise of free
speech and the protection of broader
societal interests.
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India
allows the government to impose
reasonable restrictions on the freedom
of speech and expression in the
interests of:
Security of the State: This includes
protecting the country from internal and
external threats, such as war, terrorism,
and subversion.
Friendly relations with foreign States:
This includes preventing speech that
could harm India's relations with other
countries.
Public order: This includes preventing
speech that could lead to violence,
disorder, or chaos.
Decency or morality: This includes
preventing speech that is obscene,
offensive, or otherwise harmful to public
morals.
Contempt of court: This includes
preventing speech that undermines the
authority of the courts.
SOHAM
Defamation: This includes preventing
speech that harms the reputation of
another person.
Incitement to an offence: This includes
preventing speech that incites others to
commit a crime.
Integrity and Sovereignty of India: This
includes preventing speech that
undermines the unity, integrity, or
sovereignty of India.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court of India has played a
crucial role in interpreting and clarifying
the restrictions under Article 19(2). It has
recognized the importance of upholding
freedom of speech as a cornerstone of
democracy while acknowledging the
necessity of imposing reasonable
restrictions in specific
circumstances.The restrictions under
Article 19(2) have been used to justify a
wide range of laws that limit freedom of
speech and expression. For example, the
laws against defamation, sedition, and
obscenity have all been upheld by the
Supreme Court as being reasonable
restrictions on freedom of speech. The
Court's judgments have established a
framework for assessing the
reasonableness of restrictions, ensuring
they do not unduly curtail the right to
free speech.
Challenges and Criticisms:
The restrictions under Article 19(2) have
faced criticism on several fronts. Some
argue that the language used in the
provision is vague and allows for
subjective interpretation, potentially
leading to the misuse of power.
03
Others believe that the restrictions
outlined in the Constitution are too
broad, giving the State excessive
discretion to curb free speech. The
restrictions under Article 19(2) have also
been used to suppress legitimate
criticism of the government. In recent
years, there have been a number of
cases where the government has used
the restrictions to silence dissent. This
has raised concerns about the erosion of
freedom of speech in India.However, it is
important to note that the Supreme
Court has consistently emphasized the
need for the restrictions to be
reasonable, proportional, and necessary
to serve a legitimate purpose.
Safeguards against Abuse:
While concerns regarding potential
abuse of the restrictions exist, Article
19(2) itself provides safeguards. The
restrictions must be reasonable and
cannot go beyond what is specified in
the Constitution. The Supreme Court has
also held that the government's actions
in imposing restrictions must be subject
to judicial review, ensuring
accountability and preventing arbitrary
curtailment of free speech.
Conclusion:
The restrictions under Article 19(2) of
the Indian Constitution form an
essential component of preserving the
validity of freedom of speech. They aim
to balance individual rights with
societal interests, ensuring that the
exercise of free speech does not
undermine the fabric of a democratic
society.
SOHAM
Overall, the restrictions under Article
19(2) are a complex and controversial
issue. There is a delicate balance to be
struck between protecting freedom of
speech and expression and preventing
harm to the public interest. The Supreme
Court of India has played a key role in
interpreting these restrictions, and its
decisions have had a significant impact
on the freedom of speech in India.
Analysis of the question,”Are you
aware of Article 19 of the
Constitution of India and the
restrictions under it?”:
Based on the responses obtained from
the research survey regarding awareness
of Article 19 of the Constitution of India
and its restrictions, we can observe a
mixed level of awareness among the
participants. Out of the total
respondents, 73.6% indicated that they
were aware of Article 19 and its
restrictions, while the remaining 26.4%
stated that they were not aware.
The fact that a majority of respondents
(73.6%) were aware of Article 19 and its
restrictions suggests a relatively high
level of awareness among the
participants regarding constitutional
provisions related to freedom of speech
in India. This indicates that a significant
portion of the surveyed population is
knowledgeable about their rights and the
limitations imposed on freedom of
speech.
04
The presence of a considerable
percentage (26.4%) of respondents who
indicated a lack of awareness highlights
the need for continued efforts in
educating the public about their
constitutional rights and the restrictions
associated with freedom of speech. It
emphasizes the importance of
disseminating information, conducting
awareness campaigns, and promoting
civic education to ensure that citizens
are well-informed about their rights and
responsibilities within the constitutional
framework.
This analysis underscores the relevance
of the research topic and the ongoing
need for scholarly engagement with
issues surrounding freedom of speech
and its restrictions in India. It highlights
the importance of research in raising
awareness, fostering informed
discussions, and contributing to the
development of a robust constitutional
framework that safeguards individual
liberties while upholding the interests of
the broader society.
SOHAM AND NIDHISH
3. ARE RESTRICTIONS
IMPORTANT?
While Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution protects the right to free
speech, Article 19(2) places limits on that
right. It is believed that these regulations
are necessary to defend India's
independence, sovereignty, and public
morals. In the interest of things like
public order, decency, morality,
contempt of court, defamation, and
incitement to an offence, this provision
allows for the imposition of reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of free
speech.
Proponents of these limits say that they
are crucial for striking a fair balance
between individuals' freedoms and the
public good. Some people argue that
restrictions on free speech are necessary
to avoid violence, stop the spread of false
information, and keep the peace. These
limits are seen as fair and necessary
checks on free speech to prevent
irresponsible behaviour.
However, critics may point out that
Article 19(2)'s prohibitions can be abused
to silence criticism and limit personal
freedoms. They argue that there is too
much flexible area in the provision,
which could lead to the suppression of
free speech on political issues. The
freedom of the press is essential for a
healthy democracy, and critics say
authorities are using these limits as a
tactic to muzzle dissenting voices.
05
It's worth noting that in any democratic However, a sizable proportion of
society, finding the right compromise respondents think the regulations have
between free expression and reasonable helped protect the constitutionally
constraints is an issue of great protected right to free expression, as
contention. In the end, how restrictions evidenced by the combined percentages
under Article 19(2) are interpreted and of those who agreed (34.4%) and strongly
implemented, as well as their effect on agreed (18.8%). These respondents almost
the rights and well-being of individuals certainly view these limitations as fair
and society as a whole, will determine compromises between personal
their efficacy and importance. expression and the needs of society as a
whole.
In conclusion, the limitations imposed
by Article 19(2) of the Indian Disagree
5.5%
Strongly Agree
Constitution might be considered as 18.8%
essential for preserving public order,
guarding national security, and striking
a fair balance between individual rights
and the needs of society as a whole.
Freedom of speech and expression is a
cornerstone of any democratic society, Neutral
39.8%
but the potential for misuse and
subjective interpretation necessitates
continual inspection and attention to Agree
ensure that these restrictions do not go 34.4%

too far

Analysis of the question, ‘'Does The The intricacy and ongoing controversy
restrictions specified under section 19(2) about the Article 19(2) restrictions are
help in preserving the constitutional reflected in the survey results, which
goal of freedom of speech? ‘ show a wide range of public opinion.
More dialogue and analysis are required
The fact that nearly 40% of respondents to understand the motivations for the
gave no opinion implies that this group neutral posture and the large percentage
lacks firm conviction or understanding of agreement, both of which indicate that
regarding the efficacy of the public opinion is divided on the topic.
restrictions. They may have doubts
about how effectively these regulations
have protected the constitutionally
guaranteed right to free expression.
Possible causes for this agnostic
perspective include ignorance of the
limits themselves or an inability to
evaluate their overall significance.

NIDHISH 06
4.ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION, “DO YOU BELIEVE THAT
THE RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN INDIA
STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS AND MAINTAINING SOCIAL HARMONY?”
The responses to the research survey on
the restrictions on freedom of speech in
India reveal a diverse range of opinions.
Out of the four options provided, the
majority of respondents believe that the
restrictions somewhat strike a balance,
but there is room for improvement in
protecting individual rights and
maintaining social harmony. This
indicates a nuanced understanding of
the complexities involved in upholding
freedom of speech while also
considering broader societal interests.
The survey responses align with the
notion that the current restrictions do
strike a balance to some extent but
require improvements. This sentiment
is in line with the research piece, which
acknowledged the challenges and
criticisms surrounding the restrictions.
Respondents expressed a desire for
enhanced protection of individual rights
while maintaining social harmony,
emphasizing the need for clearer
guidelines and objective criteria for
imposing restrictions.
ARYAN
"They effectively strike a balance by
respecting individual rights while
ensuring social harmony", This option
was chosen by approximately 28.9% of
the respondents. These individuals
believe that the current restrictions
adequately balance the preservation of
individual rights and the promotion of
social harmony. They likely appreciate
the reasoning behind the restrictions
outlined in Article 19(2) and view them
as necessary safeguards.
"They somewhat strike a balance, but
there is room for improvement in
protecting individual rights and
maintaining social harmony": Around
46.1% of the respondents selected this
option. These individuals acknowledge
that some level of balance exists but
perceive the need for improvements in
the protection of individual rights while
maintaining social harmony. They may
agree with the research piece's
acknowledgment of challenges and
criticisms regarding the restrictions and
believe that refinements could enhance
the balance.
07
"They prioritize social harmony over Overall, the majority of respondents
individual rights, and improvements are (approximately 46.1%) believe that the
needed to strike a better balance": current restrictions on freedom of
Roughly 18% of the respondents speech in India strike a balance to some
expressed this viewpoint. They believe extent, although there is room for
that the current restrictions prioritize improvement in protecting individual
social harmony at the expense of rights while maintaining social
individual rights. They agree with the harmony. This aligns with the research
research piece's discussion of criticisms piece's emphasis on the reasonable
and argue for a better balance that restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) and
upholds individual freedoms while still the Supreme Court's role in interpreting
considering social harmony. and ensuring the reasonableness of
these restrictions.
"They inadequately protect individual
rights and compromise social harmony":
Approximately 7% of the respondents
chose this option. These individuals
believe that the restrictions fail to
adequately protect individual rights and
even compromise social harmony. They
align with the research piece's
acknowledgement of concerns
regarding potential abuse and advocate
for stronger safeguards to ensure the
protection of individual rights.

ARYAN 08
5. IS INCREASED GOVT INTERVENTION TO COMBAT
MISINFORMATION AND HATE SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA
REQUIRED? WILL IT BE AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
The provided data obtained from the
survey consists of a series of responses
to the question of whether there is a
need to increase government
intervention in social media to target
users who may spread misinformation
and hate speech. The responses indicate
a strong consensus in favor of increased
government intervention, with a
majority of respondents agreeing (35.7%)
or strongly agreeing (28.7%) with this
proposition.
The prevalence of misinformation and
hate speech on social media platforms
is a significant concern in today's digital
age. These issues can lead to real-world
consequences, such as incitement of
violence, erosion of trust in democratic
institutions, and harm to individuals
and communities. Given the potential
risks associated with the spread of
misinformation and hate speech, it is
understandable that individuals may
perceive increased government
intervention as necessary to address
these challenges effectively.
By targeting users who spread
misinformation and hate speech,
governments can potentially mitigate
the negative impact of such content on
society. This intervention may involve
implementing stricter regulations,
establishing oversight bodies, or even
developing technological solutions to
identify and remove harmful content.
AYUSH GUPTA
Proponents argue that these measures
can help maintain public safety, protect
vulnerable groups, and preserve the
integrity of public discourse.
However, concerns have been raised
regarding the potential infringement on
freedom of speech that increased
government intervention may entail.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental
human right that allows individuals to
express their opinions and ideas without
censorship or fear of reprisal. Critics
argue that overly broad or vague
legislation and regulations designed to
combat misinformation and hate speech
may lead to the suppression of
legitimate speech and impede the open
exchange of ideas.
To strike a balance between combating
harmful content and preserving freedom
of speech, it is crucial to establish clear
and well-defined criteria for determining
what constitutes misinformation and
hate speech. Laws and regulations
should be carefully crafted to avoid
ambiguities and protect against misuse
or abuse. Additionally, transparency and
accountability in the implementation of
such measures are essential to ensure
that they are not applied arbitrarily or
disproportionately.
09
Moreover, it is important to explore
alternative approaches to address
misinformation and hate speech on
social media. Education and media
literacy programs can play a significant
role in equipping individuals with the
skills to critically evaluate information
and navigate the digital landscape
effectively. Collaborative efforts
between social media platforms, civil
society organizations, and governments
can foster a multi-stakeholder approach,
encouraging self-regulation and
responsible behavior.

In conclusion, based on the provided

data and the analysis of the question, it
appears that there is a perceived need
for increased government intervention
to combat misinformation and hate
speech on social media. However, any
measures taken should be carefully
designed and implemented to avoid
infringing upon freedom of speech.
Striking a balance between addressing
harmful content and protecting
fundamental rights requires clear
criteria, transparency, accountability,
and collaboration among various
stakeholders. By adopting a the six fundamental rights, is subject to
multifaceted approach that combines
regulation, education, and self-
regulation, it is possible to tackle the
challenges posed by misinformation
and hate speech while preserving the
principles of a free and open society.
6. IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTRICTIONS-
THE EXTENT OF IMPARTIALITY
Along the lines of the Preamble which
grants to all its citizens, liberty of thought
and expression, Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution of India states that, all
citizens shall have the right to freedom of
speech and expression. However, the
implementation of Article 19, also one of
certain ‘reasonable’ restrictions as
mentioned in Article 19(2). These
restrictions can be categorised under
several heads, some of them being security
of the state, defamation, decency and
morality, public order, etc.

Q- Do you feel the need to use the
restrictions under Article 19(2) by
increasing the government’s level of
intervention in social media for
targeting users who may spread
misinformation and hate speech?
The functioning of media houses in India
often remains under question, especially
when allegations are imposed on several
well-known ones with respect to favouring
the ruling political party or downplaying
the role of any social group.

AYUSH GUPTA AND AASHI SHARMA 10

As one of the major components of
Article 19, Freedom of Press is
something absolutely essential to
uphold democracy in a diverse country
like India. According to the World Press
Freedom Index, 2023 released by
Reporters from Borders, India ranks at
161 among 180 countries, down by 11
positions as compared to the previous
year, by the index that ranks countries
based on the environment of journalism.
The reasons, according to the
independent organisation committed to
safeguarding the right to freedom, were
“media takeovers by oligarchs close to
Prime Minister Modi jeopardising
pluralism”, indicating the bent attitude
of the Article’s implementation towards
the majority.
However, according to the primary data
collected from 128 respondents in the
form of a survey, over 39% of the
respondents scoring the
implementation of the Article as 3 out of
5, on the ground of impartial
implementation of its restrictions
indicates that considerable equality is
being promoted through this Act and
arouses skepticism to a certain degree
regarding the actual situation.
Nevertheless, what can be understood
from the research is that the current
situation still needs improvement, we
still have a long way to go for the
effective implementation of this Article.
The first and foremost requirement for
the same is undoubtedly the
independence of the legislature from the
judiciary.
AASHI SHARMA
A judiciary which is not kept under the
influence of any particular group would
be able to deliver appropriate
judgements for the benefit of society.
Further, proper implementation of anti-
discriminatory laws, such as Section
153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
which criminalises the use of language
that promotes discrimination or violence
against people on the basis of race, caste,
sex, place of birth, religion, gender
identity, sexual orientation or any other
category, must be ensured to avoid
partiality in related aspects. To increase
the faith of the public regarding the
restrictions being imposed on all
citizens in a similar fashion, the role of
independent media organisations and
especially social media must be
promoted.
Regardless, it becomes essential to
appreciate the fact that the restrictions
so imposed are for our betterment only,
and thus, a clear understanding of the
difference between “speech” and “hate
speech”, needs to be there. About their
fair implementation, the only players to
ensure this are the three organs of our
democratic system.
SURVEY ANALYSIS
11
 However, failure to follow neutral
7.SHOULD RESTRICTIONS VARY BASED
guidelines can backfire. It must be
ON THE MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION?
ensured that all restrictions are
AND DO THEY HELP IN SAFEGUARDING
reasonable, appropriate and balanced for
THE RIGHTS OF MARGINALISED
the objectives to be pursued. The
COMMUNITIES?
government should not use different
restrictions to silence complaints or
illegal projects in the community.
Expression constraints are complex and
Balancing the right to freedom of
multifaceted issues, and it is a matter of
expression with the need to protect
debate whether these constraints will
marginalised communities requires
vary by means of expression. While it is
careful thought and a commitment to
important to support the rights of
uphold human rights.
marginalised communities, it may be
necessary and problematic to impose
Moreover, the effectiveness of the ban in
various restrictions on the media
protecting the rights of marginalised
depending on the context.
communities is an ongoing issue. While
some restrictions may be put in place to
Freedom of expression is an important
protect conflict groups from hate speech
human right under international law
or discrimination, there is no guarantee
and covers a wide range of media,
that they will have the desired effect. In
including speech, writing, art and digital
some cases, restrictions may hinder
platforms. Different environments have
legitimate speech or impede the ability
certain characteristics and effects that
of marginalised communities to defend
can be seen in different ways. For
their rights. This can exacerbate existing
example, radio and traditional media
power imbalances and hinder progress
tend to have the ability to reach wider
towards a more integrated society.
audiences and influence public opinion.

Effective protection of the rights of

Therefore, stricting rules against hate
marginalised communities requires
speech or violence for these media are
extensive training.
not good for preventing the spread of
This includes promoting inclusive rights,
negative ideas and protecting those who
promoting dialogue and understanding,
help the group.
providing legal protection against
discrimination and addressing systemic
inequalities. Empowering marginalised
communities to express their views and
concerns is crucial to combating
discrimination and raising their voices.

ADITYA 12
In addition to restrictions, other A significant number of individuals
mechanisms can be used to ensure that express that their stance depends on the
the rights of marginalised communities situation, recognizing the need for
are protected. It is important to support context-specific considerations. This
the self-regulation of the media highlights the complexity of the issue
industry, develop media awareness and and the importance of balancing
create a platform for critical voices. freedom of expression with the
Emphasise that education and protection of marginalised communities.
awareness can play an important role in Ultimately, the survey results provide a
challenging stereotypes, promoting snapshot of individual perspectives and
understanding and creating greater emphasise the need for ongoing dialogue
inclusion. and careful evaluation when addressing
Consequently, although restrictions on restrictions on expression.
expression may differ from the average,
a balance must be struck between
protecting marginalised groups and
promoting freedom of expression.
Different restrictions must be
reasonable, reasonable and
proportionate to the objectives achieved,
avoiding abuse or opposition to a
referendum. Effectively protecting the
rights of marginalised groups requires a
comprehensive approach that goes
beyond limitations, including promoting
inclusive rights, addressing inequalities
and empowering these vulnerable
groups to have a voice.

Analysis of the question,”Do you believe

that restrictions on freedom of speech
should differ based on the medium of
expression (e.g., print media, television,
social media)?”
The survey responses indicate a
diversity of opinions regarding whether
restrictions on expression should vary
based on the medium used. While a
majority of respondents believe that
different mediums require different
restrictions, others argue for uniform
restrictions across all mediums.

ADITYA 13
8. ARE RESTRICTION ON SPEECH REQUIRED ON POLITICAL
SPEECH DURING ELECTION PERIODS?
Regulations on Political Speech during
Election Periods
Overview: The Importance of Political
Speech in Election Campaigns
Political speech plays a pivotal role in
election campaigns, serving as a vital
means of communication between
political candidates, parties, and the
electorate. It allows candidates to
articulate their policies, beliefs, and
visions for the nation, while enabling
voters to make informed decisions
based on the information and
arguments presented to them. The
freedom to express political opinions is
not only a fundamental right but also a
cornerstone of democratic societies.
Political speech has the power to shape
public opinion and influence the
perspectives and beliefs of voters.
Through persuasive arguments,
emotional appeals, and clear messaging,
political speech can shape the narrative
surrounding key issues and influence
voter attitudes towards various policy
positions.
The Need for Regulations to Ensure Fair
and Transparent Campaigns
Fair and transparent campaigns are
essential for the integrity of the
electoral process and to maintain public
trust in democratic systems.
GARV VIJHANI
Regulations play a crucial role in
ensuring that election campaigns are
conducted in a manner that is fair,
equitable, and transparent. In the era of
digital communication, regulations play
a crucial role in combating the spread of
disinformation, misinformation, and
fake news during election campaigns.
By setting standards for transparency in
political advertising, fact-checking
claims, and penalising deliberate
attempts to deceive voters, regulations
help safeguard the accuracy and
integrity of information available to the
public. This promotes an informed
electorate and minimises the potential
for manipulation or the distortion of
public opinion. Regulations serve as a
framework for promoting ethical
campaign practices and preventing the
use of unethical tactics such as
spreading hate speech, inciting
violence, or engaging in personal
attacks.
Are the regulations on Political Speech
during Election Periods against the
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution
which promotes freedom of speech?
While regulations on political speech
during election periods may impose
limitations on the content and manner
of expression, they are not intended to
suppress or curtail freedom of speech.
Instead, they aim to prevent the misuse
of speech,
14
such as spreading misinformation, hate
speech, or engaging in unethical
campaign practices, which can
potentially undermine the democratic
process. These regulations are in line
with the broader constitutional goals of
promoting public order, decency, and
the sovereignty and integrity of the
nation.
It is important to note that the Indian
Constitution recognizes the
significance of freedom of speech and
expression while also acknowledging
the need for reasonable restrictions to
safeguard other equally important
interests, such as the integrity of
elections. The restrictions imposed
under Article 19(2) are intended to
ensure a fair and level playing field for
all candidates, promote transparency,
and prevent the distortion of public
opinion. These regulations aim to strike
a balance between preserving freedom
of speech and protecting the integrity
and fairness of the electoral process
and are designed to strike a balance
between protecting freedom of speech
and maintaining the integrity of the
electoral process.
GARV VIJHANI
Investigating the perspectives of
respondents on the necessity of
regulations on political speech during
election periods to ensure fair and
transparent campaigns
The analysis of the survey responses
indicates that a significant portion of
the respondents (43%) believe that
regulations on political speech during
election periods are extremely
important. They recognize the need for
such regulations to prevent misuse of
speech and ensure fairness in
campaigns. Another group (36.7%)
considers these regulations moderately
important, highlighting the importance
of maintaining a level playing field.
However, a smaller percentage (14.8%)
believes that regulations can limit
freedom of expression and political
discourse. Remaining view regulations
as not important at all, advocating for
unrestricted political speech during
elections. These findings demonstrate
the diverse perspectives on the
necessity of regulations, emphasizing
the complexity of balancing freedom of
expression and fair campaign practices.
15
9. DOES PERIODIC REVIEW AND
REVISION OF THE RESTRICTIONS
ENSURE THEIR RELEVANCE AND
ALIGNMENT WITH EVOLVING
SOCIETAL DYNAMICS?
Periodic review and revision of
restrictions are essential to ensure their
ongoing relevance and alignment with
evolving societal dynamics. As societies
change and progress, the needs, values,
and priorities of the people within them
also evolve. This necessitates a
continuous evaluation of existing
restrictions to determine if they still
serve their intended purposes or if
adjustments are necessary to address
emerging challenges.
By conducting regular reviews,
policymakers can assess the
effectiveness and impact of existing
restrictions in light of societal changes.
This involves considering factors such
as technological advancements,
cultural shifts, economic developments,
and social trends. For example, the
advent of new technologies or the
emergence of novel social issues may
require the adaptation of existing
restrictions or the creation of new ones.
These reviews also provide an
opportunity to gauge public sentiment,
engage stakeholders, and solicit
feedback from affected communities.
Society's collective values and
perspectives may evolve over time, and
it is important to ensure that
restrictions reflect these changing
attitudes.
PRAVEEN AND DIVYANSH
Public input and engagement in the
review process can enhance
transparency, legitimacy, and
acceptance of the resulting decisions.
Furthermore, periodic review and
revision allow for the identification and
rectification of unintended
consequences or inequities that may
have arisen from existing restrictions.
As societal dynamics change, certain
populations or groups may face
disproportionate burdens or
disadvantages due to outdated or poorly
designed restrictions. Through review
and revision, policymakers can address
these shortcomings, promote fairness,
and strive for more equitable outcomes
The relation of such revisions with the
Restrictions under Section 19(2).
The idea of periodic review and revision
of restrictions, their relevance, and
alignment with evolving societal
dynamics does indeed have relevance
to the concept of restrictions under
Section 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
Section 19(2) of the Indian Constitution
grants the right to freedom of speech
and expression to its citizens, subject to
certain reasonable restrictions. These
restrictions are intended to balance
individual freedoms with the broader
interests of society, such as public
order, morality, and the sovereignty and
integrity of India.
16
n the context of Section 19(2), periodic
review and revision of these restrictions
become crucial. As societal dynamics
evolve, the interpretation and
application of these restrictions must
be regularly assessed to ensure their
continued relevance and alignment
with the changing needs of society.
What may have been considered a
reasonable restriction in the past may
not necessarily hold true in the present
or future.
Periodic review and revision enable
policymakers, lawmakers, and the
judiciary to evaluate the impact and
effectiveness of the existing restrictions
under Section 19(2). It allows them to
determine whether these restrictions
strike an appropriate balance between
safeguarding individual rights and
protecting the larger interests of
society. It also provides an opportunity
to rectify any unintended consequences
or potential misuse of these
restrictions.
Moreover, periodic review and revision
facilitate the incorporation of evolving
societal values and norms into the
interpretation of these restrictions. As
society progresses, there may be shifts
in public opinion, cultural attitudes, or
technological advancements that need
to be considered while determining the
scope and limitations of freedom of
speech and expression.
PRAVEEN AND DIVYANSH
By conducting periodic reviews,
engaging in public consultations, and
staying attuned to societal dynamics,
policymakers and the judiciary can
ensure that the restrictions under
Section 19(2) of the Indian Constitution
are kept up-to-date and responsive to
the changing needs and aspirations of
the people. This approach reinforces
the democratic principles enshrined in
the Indian Constitution while
promoting a healthy balance between
individual rights and the larger
interests of society.
Do these periodic revisions violate the
foundational ‘Freedom of speech’?
Periodic revisions of restrictions under
Section 19(2) of the Indian Constitution,
when conducted in a thoughtful and
careful manner, do not inherently
violate the foundational freedom of
speech. Instead, they can be seen as a
means to ensure the continued
relevance and effectiveness of this
fundamental right within the evolving
societal context.
Freedom of speech, like many other
rights, is not absolute and can be
subject to reasonable restrictions in
certain circumstances. These
restrictions are typically aimed at
protecting public order, morality,
national security, or the rights of others.
The Indian Constitution, in Section
19(2), provides a framework for such
restrictions, recognizing the need to
strike a balance between individual
freedoms and the larger interests of
society.
17
Periodic revisions of these restrictions ensuring that the right to freedom of
allow for a critical examination of their speech remains meaningful and
impact and relevance. They provide an balanced within the evolving dynamics
opportunity to assess whether the of Indian society.
existing limitations on freedom of
speech are still necessary, Survey analysis and its interpretation
proportionate, and aligned with the
changing dynamics of society. These Q- In your opinion, should the
revisions can help prevent the restrictions on freedom of speech be
restrictions from becoming outdated, subject to periodic review and revision
disproportionate, or arbitrary, ensuring to ensure their relevance and alignment
that they continue to serve their with evolving societal dynamics?
intended purposes.
However, it is crucial that any revisions
or changes are conducted within the
framework of constitutional principles
and safeguards. The principles of
reasonableness, proportionality, and
non-arbitrariness should guide the
revision process. The judiciary plays a
vital role in upholding these principles
and ensuring that any restrictions
imposed on freedom of speech comply
with constitutional standards.
It is also important to note that the
freedom of speech itself encompasses a
wide range of expression, including
dissent, criticism, and the exchange of
ideas. The periodic review of
restrictions should aim to safeguard
and promote these aspects while
addressing legitimate concerns related
to public order, morality, and other
constitutionally recognized interests.
In conclusion, when carried out with
due regard for constitutional principles,
periodic revisions of restrictions under
Section 19(2) do not violate the
foundational freedom of speech. Rather,
they contribute to its continued
relevance,

PRAVEEN AND DIVYANSH 18

The finding that 32.6% of respondents
believe that restrictions on free speech
should be reviewed "very effectively"
suggests a notable proportion of
individuals who prioritize a thorough
and frequent evaluation of such
limitations. This data points to a
significant minority who advocate for a
meticulous and regular examination of
the constraints imposed on free
expression. Their stance implies a
commitment to ensuring that any
restrictions on speech are constantly
scrutinized to strike a delicate balance
between safeguarding individual rights
and addressing concerns related to
potential harm or misuse of such
freedoms. This perspective underscores
the ongoing importance of robust
discussions and a democratic process
in shaping policies that govern free
speech.
The finding that 50.4% of respondents
believe that restrictions on free speech
should be reviewed "moderately
effectively" suggests that a majority of
people recognize the need for regular
evaluations, albeit at a less frequent
pace compared to the most concerned
respondents. This viewpoint highlights
a belief in striking a balance between
maintaining the integrity of free speech
and avoiding excessive or unnecessary
reviews.
PRAVEEN AND DIVYANSH
The data suggests that these
individuals acknowledge the
importance of periodically reassessing
restrictions to ensure they remain
relevant and aligned with societal
values, while also avoiding an overly
burdensome or disruptive review
process that could hinder the effective
functioning of free speech protections.
This perspective reflects a pragmatic
approach that values both freedom of
expression and the need for reasonable
limitations and occasional revisions.
The data indicates that approximately
17% of respondents hold the belief that
restrictions on free speech should
either not be reviewed effectively or not
be reviewed at all. This suggests a
minority perspective that advocates for
minimal or infrequent evaluations of
such limitations. This viewpoint
implies a preference for maintaining
existing restrictions without significant
scrutiny or revisitation. It is worth
noting that this segment represents a
smaller fraction of the overall
respondents, indicating a divergence in
opinions regarding the necessity and
frequency of reviewing restrictions on
free speech.
Overall, the survey data suggests that
there is a broad consensus that
restrictions on freedom of speech
should be subject to periodic review and
revision. This is a positive development,
as it suggests that people are aware of
the importance of ensuring that the
restrictions on free speech are relevant
and aligned with evolving societal
dynamics.
19