Answer

The Indian judiciary plays a pivotal role in protecting the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Through judicial interventions, courts have navigated limitations imposed by reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2)), evolving into guardians of democratic discourse amid rising legal and societal challenges.

Shortcomings of Indian Judiciary in Upholding the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

• Overbroad Defamation Interpretations: Courts have upheld defamation cases that may suppress legitimate criticism.
  Eg.  In June 2025, the Allahabad High Court ruled that Congress MP Rahul Gandhi must face trial for allegedly defaming the Indian Army, emphasizing that free speech doesn’t extend to defamatory remarks.
• Restricting Online Expression: Judicial support for government-led content moderation can limit online free speech.
  Example: In March 2024, the Supreme Court temporarily halted a government-appointed fact-checking unit, citing concerns over its potential to restrict free expression.
• Chilling Effect on Media Criticism: Contempt proceedings against media for criticism can deter journalistic independence.
  Example: In October 2024, the Delhi High Court ordered Wikipedia to remove a page about a defamation case involving ANI, raising concerns about judicial overreach.
• Selective Enforcement of Sedition Laws: Inconsistent application of sedition laws can suppress dissent.
  Eg. In May 2025, Madri Kakoti, an assistant professor at Lucknow University, was granted anticipatory bail after facing sedition charges for a social media post discussing a terror attack.
• Judicial Paternalism in Free Speech Cases: Courts have sometimes imposed moral judgments on speech, potentially infringing on free expression.
  Example: In March 2025, the Supreme Court criticized a podcaster for an allegedly obscene joke, imposing vague moral conditions on future content.

Although these shortcomings exist, the judiciary has played a crucial role in safeguarding the right to freedom of speech and expression by striking down vague laws, upholding political speech.

Role of Indian Judiciary in Safeguarding Free Speech

• Striking Down Section 66A of IT Act: The Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A for being vague and overbroad, protecting online speech from suppression.
  Eg: In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the court affirmed online intermediaries won’t be compelled to remove content without legal mandate.
• Upholding Publication Freedom: Courts have protected the press from censorship under state-imposed licensing.
  Eg: In Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, the Supreme Court scrapped newsprint-plus-page restrictions to safeguard press freedom.
• Protecting Political Speech: The judiciary underscored that defamation cases must be carefully weighed against free speech.
• Framing Proportionality Tests: The Supreme Court refined the proportionality doctrine for speech restrictions under age- or content-based laws.
  Eg: In K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017), the Court emphasized that restrictions on speech must be proportionate and justified, protecting Article 19(1)(a) and upholding fundamental rights against excessive state interference.
• Reining in Executive Takedown Powers: Courts have resisted arbitrary takedown directives issued by state authorities.
  Eg: Delhi HC challenged police-led social media orders, mandating due legal process for online censorship.

Way Forward for Strengthening Protection

• Judicial Oversight for Online Takedowns: Empower courts to review and approve content takedown orders.
  Eg: Uphold Supreme Court’s reading down of Section 79, requiring court sanction for intermediary action.
• Clear Guidelines for Hate Speech and Defamation: Issue precise legal benchmarks to avoid misuse and chilling effects.
  Eg. European Court of Human Rights defined liability standards in Delfi AS v. Estonia for online defamatory comments.
• Enhanced Legal Training for Lower Courts: Improve judicial capacity through structured training in speech jurisprudence.
  Eg: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Judicial Institute trains judges globally to improve understanding of complex online speech and intellectual property laws.
• Promote Balanced PIL Use: Courts should filter frivolous PILs to prevent unnecessary speech restrictions.
• Public Awareness of Free Speech Rights: Expand civic education about constitutional speech guarantees.
  Eg: Integrate free speech modules in NCERT school curricula to raise awareness.

The Indian judiciary must continue evolving its jurisprudence to robustly protect the right to freedom of speech and expression while balancing public order and security. Strengthening judicial capacity, embracing transparency, and promoting digital literacy will ensure this fundamental right adapts effectively to future challenges.

DOWNLOAD PDF