PCCI ASSIGNMENT

FREEDOM TO SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION –
IMPLICATIONS AND
LIMITATIONS

VIPUL GOYAL (M506)

DR MCR HRD IT, HYDERABAD
 FREEDOM TO SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Constitutional provisions of Freedom of speech and expression

- The following are crucial components of the right to free speech and expression:

a. This right is only available to Indian citizens; foreign nationals are not allowed to
exercise it.
b. The freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to voice
one's beliefs and ideas on any topic by any media, including spoken words, written or
printed words, pictures or motion pictures.
c. This right is not unrestricted, as the Indian government may enact laws that impose
reasonable limitations in situations involving the security of the nation, the sovereignty
and integrity of India, friendly relations with other countries, public order, morality,
and laws against court disobedience, defamation, and incitement to commit crimes.
d. Any citizen's ability to exercise their right to free speech may be restricted in this way
by the State's action or inaction. Therefore, if the State is deemed to have violated
Article 19(1)(a) by failing to ensure that all of its citizens have access to the basic right
to freedom of speech and expression.
e. This right includes the freedom to express one's views and opinions on any issue,
through any medium, such as by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, or
movie.

The freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that is necessary for a democracy
to function. Even if a person's beliefs are contentious or unpopular, it still allows for their free
expression. This right is crucial for encouraging social change and holding the government
responsible.

Restrictions or limitations on freedom of speech and their reasonable justifications

The conditions in which such limitations are put on freedom of speech under Article 19(2) are
as follows:

1. State security: The law may place restrictions on the right to free speech in order to
safeguard the state's security, including the avoidance of sedition, encouragement to
violence, and the divulging of state secrets.
2. Friendly relations with foreign States: The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of
1951 added this justification for the ban. If exercising one's right to free speech and
expression has a negative impact on India's cordial ties with another State or States,
the State has the jurisdiction to place reasonable restrictions on those rights.
3. Public order: The law may impose restrictions on the right to free speech and
expression in order to uphold the peace and to prevent acts of racial or religious hatred,
defamation, and obscenity. This was also added under the first amendment in 1951.
4. Morality: In order to maintain morality, the law may put restrictions on the right to
free speech and expression, including banning the publication of pornographic or
blasphemous content. These are defined under the Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860.
5. Contempt of Court: The law may put constraints on the right to free speech and
expression in order to prevent contempt of court, which is defined as any action that
undercuts the legitimacy or dignity of the court. The expression Contempt of Court has
been defined under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
6. Defamation: No one may make a statement that harms another's reputation in the eyes
of society, according to clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. According
to Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, defamation is a serious offence. The
freedom of speech is not always unqualified. It doesn't imply freedom to harm someone
else's reputation, which is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.
7. Incitement to an offence: This is a further justification that the Constitution (First
Amendment) Act of 1951 added. A person is likewise forbidden by the Constitution
from making any statements that call for or exhort others to commit crimes.
8. India's sovereignty and integrity: The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act of
1963 later incorporated this justification. This is simply intended to forbid or limit
anybody from publicly criticizing the nation's integrity and sovereignty.

Few cases showing limitations to freedom of speech in India

1. Bal Thackeray v. State of Maharashtra (1996): In this case, the Supreme Court of
India upheld the conviction of Bal Thackeray, the founder of the Shiv Sena, for
inciting religious hatred and violence through his speeches.
2. S. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): In this case, the Supreme Court of India
upheld the conviction of S. Rajagopal, the editor of the Tamil magazine Thuglak, for
publishing an article that was deemed to be defamatory of the former Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu, J. Jayalalithaa.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2013): In this case, the Supreme Court of India
struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which made it an
offence to send "offensive" messages through electronic communication. The Court
held that Section 66A was vague and overly broad, and that it violated the right to
freedom of speech and expression.
4. Prashant Bhushan and Contemnors v. Union of India (2020): In this case, the
Supreme Court of India convicted three lawyers, including Prashant Bhushan, of
contempt of court for their tweets criticizing the judiciary. The Court held that the
tweets were "scurrilous" and "contemptuous", and that they had undermined the
public's confidence in the judiciary.

Conclusion

1. Citizens have the right to be free with relation to their movement, occupation,
assemblies, etc. The right to freedom is a fairly broad concept. However, it is true that
one person's right should not preclude another person's right. If a right's scope is not
defined, it has a negative effect. As a result, this right of expression also has some
limitations and is not absolute.
2. Upon reviewing the limitations mentioned above, it becomes clear that the legislature
intends to protect not only the interests of the state and the people, but also the interests
of others by granting a right to freedom. Everyone owes it to the state to exercise their
right to freedom of expression in a way that doesn't promote hostility or provoke others.
If these limitations hadn't been put in place, it would have been very difficult for the
courts to strike a balance between the rights of various State agencies.
3. Rights and obligations are inseparable and should never be seen from distinct
perspectives. For instance, one’s freedom of speech cannot diminish another person's
dignity, therefore defamation as a restriction steps in to help. The rights of the people
must be respected in a functioning democracy.

Hence this arrangement is justified as these rights will become worthless if no constraints
are put in place, and each person or state entity will lose their own personal space and
infringe on the legitimate enjoyment of these rights by others.