ABSTRACT
This research discuss the scope and restrictions of freedom of speech in recent times.Freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, serves as one of the pillars of Democracy .The constitution provides some fundamental rights to citizen but they are subject to restrictions to maintain the peace and public order in the freedom to speech, especially regarding online speech, artistic expression, and disagreement.This article analyses key Supreme Court and High Court rulings from 2023 to 2025, critiques the abuse of free speech laws, and assesses the shifting constitutional narrative on freedom of expression in India.
Keywords –freedom of speech and expression, Constitution of India,online hate speech,abuse of free speech,reasonable restrictions
INRODUCTION
Freedom of speech and expression is one of the essential pillars of democracy . Indian Constitution provides right to freedom of speech and expression to citizen of India under Article 19(1) , which includes freedom to express thoughts through various means including speech,poetry,song,gesture,writing etc,but this right is not an absolute right,it comes with certain restrictions under Article 19(2). In the age of excessive Digital use,this right expands its forms of use including facebook comments,online posts,movies etc.Here the court plays the important role in interpreting the scope and limits of Article 19 (1)(a) of Indian Constitution.While maintaning a balance between Freedom of speech and expression and protecting public order,morality and national security.In recent times courts laid down various precedents which safeguards the right and also implemented certain provisions to stop the misuse of Freedom of Speech and Expression by Individuas.The court observed that this rights is a vary basic right of democratic society but it must be enjoyed with certain restrains to protect the democratic structure of the country.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
In India, every person who’s a citizen has a set of freedoms that the Constitution promises. One of them is being able to speak your thoughts and ideas freely and express what they think, in their own ways, without being punished for it,which is enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. Peacfull assembly without weapons and arms ,form associations and unions are protected under freedom of speech and expression under Indian Constitution.It also safeguards individual right to travel any state or territory or across the country with their will. can move freely from one state to another and settle down or reside there according to there will. The right to choose the kind of work,job and profession is also safeguarded under this Article
However, there are some restrictions that a person should not impose while exercising their freedom of speech and expression. Just because people can speak freely doesn’t mean they can say anything to anyone; this freedom of speech and expression is subject to certain restrictions and is not absolute which includes not to speak against sovernity and integrity,security of the state,friendly relations with foreign countries, should not harm public peace, public morality,dignity of courts ,individuals dignity by defamation and should not provocative in nature. The government can step in and make laws that limit this freedom only when it’s really necessary like if what’s being said threatens the country’s unity, national security, or peace. They can also step in if it disrespects public morality, offends the court, defames someone unfairly, or encourages people to commit crimes.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research follows the doctrinal method of research, and more focus of attention on constitutional interpretation of scope andreasonable restrictions of freedom of speech, pattern of judicial decision and legal framework.
The research explores the limits and scope of freedom of speech and expression in India specified under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.This research evolve around conceptual framework specially in the age of digital advancement.
This study offers a timeline of image of recent drift in freedom of speech & experession and recent on-going cases & observation by the Indian Courts And based on primary sources: supreme court Judgements, constitutional provisions, statutory laws, leading case based on freedom of speech and expression.The landmark cases like , Anuradha basin v. Union of India , Shreya Singhal v. Union of India ,Amish devgan and recent supreme courts observation regarding misuse of freedom by comedians,artists and influencers.
This research evolve around the conceptual Framework specially in the age of digital advancement this research provide a image of recent shift in freedom of speech and expression and reason on going cases and observation by Court.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The dispute between the freedom of speech and expression scope and limitation is a subject of extensive academic and legal discourse the review is based on existing literature on this theme and subject to debate between various Scholars and Jules in recent times the concept of three speech is considered to be a basic and necessary right in democracy but it must ahead to certain restriction and it is not an absolute right .
The landmark judgement like Shreya Singhal and Anuradha Bhasin has trending the online right to speech in India there is a emerging challenge of protecting miss information hate speech and Rolling in the society and the name of free speech .In 2023 608 cases were registered of hate speech which increased by 74 percent in 2024 becoming 1165 registered cases.These are circulated on social media,public forums etc which leads to public outrage and communal disharmony.
This research to connect the recent responses by Court of abuse of freedom of speech and political landscape.
HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF FREE SPEECH JURISPREDENCE IN INDIA
After Independence,a series of cases and events has evole which led to the interpretation of the scope of Article 19(1) of Indian Constitution multiple times. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), a ban on journal by madras government was challenged where court held that “the imposition of a ban on Crossroads violated Article 19(1)(a) and declared Section 9(1)(A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act unconstitutional by the use of power of Article 13(1)”, aftewords court added “Public order”as one of the a grounds of restriction of Freedom of speech and Expression in First Constitutional Amendment 1950.
In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950) the court ruled that “pre-censorship cannott be imposed unless there is danger to public order or states security ,and established Freedom of Press which is a vital part of Fundametal Right of Freedom of speech of expression”.
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India case (2020),a jounalist filed a petition against the internate shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir,which is voilative of there fundamental rights, the court held that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) andheld that freedom to choose and practice any work, business or occupation over internet as a medium enjoys Constitutional protection and court emphasises that state cannot impose internet shutdown for indefinite time or unnecessarily and must be proportinate reasonably limited ,lawful and only when necessary .Similarly In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015),where the Section 66 A of Information Technology Act 2020 was challenged and court observed that this section is vague and arbitrary and declared it unconstitutional and violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
While the Supreme Court has gradually broadened the scope of Article 19(1)(a), it has also stressed that this freedom is not absolute and surrounded with certain restrictions. The Court has marked clear boundaries when speech endangers public order or community peace.In the case of Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020),an indian news anchor made derogratery comments on a Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti on Television,lead to multiple FIRs against him,the court drew a line between hate speech and free speech and emphasised upon that the free speech cannot be used to promote hatred among communities and to hurt religious sentiments.Court held that “ Freedom of speech cannot extend to create public disorder or armour by those who challenge integrity and unity of Country or incite voilence”.
In the series of cases the judiciary took a protective and cautious approach and reaffirmed speech liberties,and also preventing harm to public order and integrity. This has laid down a strong foundation, but new challenges emerged with the digital revolution and heightened political sensitivities.
RECENT JUDICIAL TRENDS (2022–2025)
Over the years, courts have interpreted these grounds to develop nuanced doctrines, balancing the right against the risk of misuse in recent times ,Indian courts have expressed there concerns regarding the Abuse of Freedom of Speech and Expression,various cases in recent times sparked controversy regarding free speech and its restriction.
Some of these includes ,Shamishtha panoli , a 22 year influencer was arrested for alleglly posting controversial religious content against one community continuously in the wake of Operation Sindoor on online platforms,legal actions were taken against her ,the court said “hate speech” is not covered under freedom of speech and expression,the use of abusive and comunally charged language cannoot fall under free speech.The court said that the citizens must know the importance of Freedom of speech and if they fail to value,this becomes necessary for the state to step in,the misuse of Freedom of speech is increasing as anyone can post anything online in the name of free speech,this right is not 100 percent absolute and it comes with reasonable restriction,she later apologied and deleted her videos.
In another controversial case registered Samay Raina and others,a youtuber in his show made insentive remarks against persons with disabilities. Similar to this,Ranveer Allahbadia ,a well known youtuber was seen making vulgar and offensive jokes involving parents in a youtube show which triggered FIR and lead to public outrage.Justice Surya Kant questioned about individual morality and the kinds of words used in content of parents,the bench said this is obscenity and disgusting.Underscoring the primacy of human dignity,Justice Kant added, “We must recognize that the right to dignity also stems from the rights asserted by another individual. Article 19 of the Constitution”.Article 19 of the Constitution,” he said, “can’t overpower Article 21. Suppose a race takes place between Article 19 and 21, Article 21 has to trump Article 19″and said that not all that is funny is constitutional, Satire is not a license to wound and it cannot target dignity,religion and disabilities, this is not the first time the comedians and influencers over used freedom of speech and expressions.
Hemant malviya,a cartoonist faced charges against him of Section 196,299 and 352 of BNS and 67A of Information Technology Act 2020.He drew multiple caricatures and those were open access to edit and make remarks online,various posts were about Lord shiva,RSS workers and Prime minister in which derogatory remarks were made.Justice Dhulia remarked it as “abuse of Freedom of Speech and Expression,he added people write anything on social media in any language.Furthermore Justice Kant said that right to free speech cannot override Right to dignity under Article 22 of Indian Constitution”.
In Wajahat khan case,who made objectionable remarks on social media posts about Hindu goddess,the court emphasised that anything cannot be posted on soial media in the name of free speech,Control on words and language must be taken care of and a person must be responsibly use social media as a platform to exercise Freedom of speech not to hurt peoples sentiments and communal disturbance.In all thses cases the court expressed there opinion on having some regulations of content on social media and invited advices from stakeholders and asks individuals to be careful while sharing or liking content on social media.
In in India the ministers and politician statement during arguments and debate have question multiple times on the use of derogatory language and propagative statements, one of the most important cases involve Nupur Sharma controversy in 2022 a formal spokes person of Bharatiya Janata party has made derigatory remark about prophet Mohammed hurting religious sentiments of Islamic community domestically and internationally.
Her remark was so offensive that it escalated tensions in India as well as in Islamic countries, multiple FIR were lodged against Nupur Sharma in a small period of time ,BJP suspended her from the party and Supreme Court stated that she had no control over her words and she is solely responsible for the situation happening in the country.Supreme Court Club all the FIR and transfer the investigation to Delhi Police unit ,It sparked protest across the country and in Islamic States including UAE ,Kuwait,Saudi Arabia,Qatar etc and high level of voilence and protest emerged in the country against her.
This case is absolute misuse of freedom of speech and the speech was used to hurt sentiments of a community and led to voilence and communal polarization in the country and this is why it becomes very much important for judiciary to intervene and distinguish between freedom of speech and expression and abuse of speech.
In the recent time Indian courts are filled with “hate speech” cases against ministers,politicians,influencers etc,the question arises here is that a hate speech a new weapon to troll or set political or social agendas.People liking,sharing these posts becomes equally responsible.The freedom of speech should not be excersiced to increase hatred and disturbancein society.During hearing of various cases the in recent times the court held “If citizens do not self regulate,the state may be forced to step in,and who wants that in a democracy”. Another case in which A Doctor,Nadeem akhtar was alleged to had posted derogatory comments on Lord Nandi and Shiva which have hurt religious sentiments of Himanchal Pradesh.The court stressed upon that while residing in a diverse society each person must respect religious beliefs of other members of community and in the name of free speech the sentiments should not be crowd.
A video from social media got viral in 2024 which was purported to show a minority community descrating a religious site in Maharastra ,leading to public outrage and crises which lead to voilence in maharstra in which vehicles and property was damaged.Later,it turned out to be fake and the owner could not be found,these misinformation can led to high damage in society and can be used as a weapon. Constitution gives right to speech and Expression but people forget that it is not absolute,right comes with responsibilities which have to be fulfilled by everyone.
Constitution gives right to speech and Expression but people forget that it is not absolute,right comes with responsibilities which have to be fulfilled by everyone.
COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF US AND INDIA’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The Article 19(1)(a) which talks about the freedom of Speech and Expression in Indian Constitution which is subject to reasonable restrictions ,whereas in the US Constitution the freedom of speech restrictions are not mentioned. The Article 19 of Indian Constitution does not explicitly mentioned freedom of press whereas US constitution mentions freedom of Press explicitly. India criminalises hate speech whereas US does not put ban hate speech unless it initiates violence.Pre censorship can be done by Indian courts to maintain balance between freedom of press & rights to fair trial whereas US allows Media to report freely unless there is a compelling state interest.Criminal defamation is a restriction to Freedom of speech and expression under Indian Constitution whereas US only recognize civil defamation and public figures need to fulfill the standard of Actual Malice.
Essentially, both India and the US value freedom of speech, yet they vary in the way they reconcile this right on different grounds.
CONCLUSION
In recent time, the the right to freedom of peach and expression has been used as a shield for offensive, harmful and socially corrosive content specially on social media. The recent shift is where the free speech is replaced with hate speech and people say anything to anyone or anywhere without thinking that it can be prevocate, offensive or derogatory. Judiciary has expressed concern about social media’s offensive ,vulgar, hateful and brutal content the court has overtime set a clear message that the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and subject to certain restrictions.
Courts have recognised satire as a part of Freedom of Speech and expression but not at the cost of Individual Dignity.In the past courts have broadened the scope of free speech by adding right to access internet,satire,freedom of press etc. but always drew a line in excercising free speech and abuse of free speech.In case of Amish Devgan, the court identified the difference hate speech and free speech and marked that free speech cannot be used to promote hatred among religious communities.Similarly in the case of Ranveer allahbadia court expressed deep disaproval on using Vulgar and derogatory language by him in the name of jokes.
Easy excess to internet gives easy excess to people to express there views on anything easily ,but accessibliliity should be used wisely and carefully for better purpose not to promote hate speech or provocative content,whereas it should be used for transparency and views should be presented without abuse or offensive comments.There is no restrain on freedom of speech,even courts over time widened the scope of free speech but it should be taken care while excersing the right,and should not overide others right.Social media is one of the new weapon to mark any offensive,brutal comment to anyone while being anonymous.Courts plays a important role in defining the free speech and abuse of speech in recent times where the online trolling,brutal comments and abusive content has became highly populer in the society,it is important to make people learn to use there right in a way it doesnot harm others.
Right comes with responsibilty,responsibility to handle it with care and not interfering in someone else right,People should be more mindful before posting,sharing any content on social media considering it might hurt religous sentiments of larger population or create public distress.As a member of the society every individual holds the responsibilty to respect every religon, maintain peace and maintain harmony amongst each other. Use of free speech in a right way is necessary,it is preservative when used for promoting public harmony and transparency and can be as destructive if used as a weapon to create voilence and public outrage.The right to free speech is given to enjoy and express our thoughts not to defame or hurt others,and voilating there right to dignity.
India is a diverse country,various religion and practises exists,one have to be careful while making remarks that it does not hurt religious sentiment and presenting there thoughts in a way that doesnot get offensive and derogatory to any person or community .One’s excess to right should not increase to an extent that it starts voilating the others right to live with dignity in society.