Freedom to Speech and Expression- Implications and Limitations

Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression

The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of
the Indian Constitution, is not just a legal provision; it's a cornerstone of democratic
principles. This provision recognizes the inherent worth of allowing individuals the liberty to
express their thoughts, opinions, and ideas. It's a recognition that, in a democracy, the power
to express oneself is not just a privilege but a right critical for the functioning of a free and
informed society.
The inclusion of this right in the constitution signifies the framers' commitment to creating a
society where citizens are active participants in shaping public discourse. In the vibrant
tapestry of democratic ideals, freedom of speech and expression weaves the threads of
diversity, dissent, and dialogue.
This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals. The freedom of
speech under Article 19(1) (a) includes the right to express one's views and opinions at any
issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc

Restrictions Or Limitations On Freedom Of Speech Along With Cases Supporting These

Limitations:

However, as with any right, the freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. Article
19(2) introduces reasonable restrictions to ensure that the exercise of this right does not
jeopardize the very democratic principles it seeks to uphold. These limitations are not
arbitrary; they are carefully defined to strike a balance between individual freedoms and the
broader interests of society.

National Security: One of the key justifications for restricting speech is the preservation of
national security. In a world marked by geopolitical complexities, nations must safeguard their
sovereignty and protect against both internal and external threats. This limitation recognizes
the necessity of preventing speech that could compromise the security and integrity of the
state.
In the case of People's Union for Civil Liberty versus Union of India (1997) Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 32of the Indian Constitution by PUCL, against the
frequent cases of telephone tapping. The validity of Section 5(2)of The Indian Telegraph Act,
1885 was challenged.It was observed that occurrence of public emergency and in the
interest of public safety it is absolutely necessary for the application of the provisions of
Section 5(2). If any of these two conditions are not present, the government has no right to
exercise its power under the said section. Telephone tapping, therefore, violates Article
19(1) (a) unless it comes within the grounds of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

Public Order: The maintenance of public order is fundamental to the functioning of society.
Restrictions on speech that may incite violence or lead to public unrest are justifiable in the
interest of protecting the well-being and safety of citizens. This ground was added by the
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 in order to meet the situation arising from the
Supreme Court's decision in Romesh Thapar's, case for delicate equilibrium between the
rights of the individual and the collective need for social harmony.
In Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal, “The expression 'public order' connotes the
sense of public peace, safety and tranquillity.”

Decency and Morality: Societal values play a vital role in shaping the cultural identity of a
nation. Restrictions on speech that goes against the accepted norms of decency and morality
are justified to uphold these values. This limitation acknowledges that freedom of expression
should not come at the cost of eroding the shared moral fabric of society.

Defamation: The clause (2) of Article 19 prevents any person from making any statement
that defames the reputation of another. Defamation is a crime in India inserted into Section
499 and 500 of the I.P.C. Right to free speech is not absolute. It does not mean freedom to
hurt another's reputation which is protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Although
truth is considered a defence against defamation, but the defence would help only if the
statement was made "for the public good.' And that is a question of fact to be assessed by
the judiciary.

Incitement to an offense: This ground was also added by the Constitution (First Amendment)
Act, 1951. The Constitution also prohibits a person from making any statement that incites
people to commit offense. In Bal Thackeray Vs State of Maharashtra (1996) , SC confirmed Bal
Thackerays conviction for using his remarks to incite religious hate and violence.

Sovereignty and integrity of India: This ground was added subsequently by the Constitution
(Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. This is aimed to prohibit anyone from making the
statements that challenge the integrity and sovereignty of India.

Friendly relations with foreign States:

This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951. The State can
impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, if it hampers the
friendly relations of India with other State or States.

Justifications on Restrictions of Freedom of Speech and Expression:

• To protect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, restrictions may be imposed on
speech that threatens the territorial integrity or sovereignty of India.
• Restrictions can be placed on speech that poses a threat to the security of the state.
• Restrictions may impose against spreading false information that could lead to
diplomatic tensions
• Imposing restrictions on public gatherings or speeches that could lead to riots or
unrest
• Restrictions may be imposed on speech that is considered obscene or offensive such
as obscenity, indecent representation, or hate speech that targets certain
communities.
• To ensure the administration of justice, restrictions may be placed on speech
interferes with or disrespects the functioning of the judiciary.
• For Protection of an individual's reputation, defamation laws allowing individuals to
seek legal recourse against false and harmful statements about them
• Restrictions may be imposed on speech hate speech targeting specific communities or
groups that may incite violence or discrimination
Conclusion: Balancing Freedom and Order

In the grand tapestry of democracy, the right to freedom of speech and expression
stands as a vibrant thread, weaving together the diverse voices that make up a society.
These justifications aim to strike a balance between the right to freedom of speech
and the need to protect the broader interests of the nation and its citizens. It's
important to note that these restrictions are subject to judicial review, and the
interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable restriction may evolve over time
The cases of Shreya Singhal and Rajagopal illustrate how the judiciary acts as the
custodian of these principles, ensuring that limitations are not arbitrary but are
reasonable, justifiable, and in harmony with the broader constitutional framework.
The justification for these limitations, whether rooted in national security, public
order, decency, or defamation, is a testament to the nuanced understanding that
democracy is not just about individual rights; it's about the delicate dance between
individual freedoms and societal order.
In conclusion, the evolution of the freedom of speech and expression in the Indian
constitutional framework is a testament to the commitment of the framers to create
a society where voices can be heard, ideas can be debated, and individuals can express
themselves freely. The reasonable restrictions are not a compromise but a recognition
that in the harmonious symphony of democracy, every instrument must play its part
without drowning out the melody.
As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, the principles outlined in Article
19(1)(a) and its limitations serve as a compass, guiding us through the delicate balance
between freedom and order. It's a reminder that in the pursuit of free expression, we
must not lose sight of the responsibility to ensure that our democracy remains a
vibrant, inclusive, and harmonious tapestry where every voice matters.