Answer:

Introduction:

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in India, safeguarded by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The judiciary plays a critical role in balancing this freedom against undue censorship, ensuring that democratic principles are preserved. Recently, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of internet access for freedom of speech, directing the government to review the prolonged internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir. 

Body:

Responsibilities of the Judiciary:

• Interpreting and Enforcing Constitutional Provisions: The judiciary ensures that constitutional protections for free speech are upheld, interpreting restrictions narrowly.
  For example: In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being overly broad and vague, protecting online expression from arbitrary state action.
• Balancing State Interests and Individual Rights: Courts evaluate whether restrictions on speech imposed by the state are justified under Article 19(2), which allows for reasonable limitations.
  For example: In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), the Supreme Court emphasized that speech can only be restricted when it poses a clear and present danger to public order.
• Judicial Review of Executive Actions: Judicial review allows the courts to scrutinize executive actions and legislation that impose censorship, ensuring they meet constitutional standards.
  For example: The Supreme Court in Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) prevented the government from imposing limits on newspaper pages, protecting press freedom from excessive state control.
• Protecting Media and Journalistic Freedoms: The judiciary defends the rights of journalists and media outlets to report and publish without undue interference, recognizing their role in democracy.
  For example: In the Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962) case, the Supreme Court struck down the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, which had restricted the number of pages in a newspaper, thereby protecting economic freedom of the press.
• Promoting Transparency and Accountability: The judiciary promotes transparency by ensuring that laws and regulations impacting freedom of expression are clear and accountable.
  For example: The Supreme Court’s decision in the PUCL v. Union of India (2003) mandated the disclosure of criminal records of candidates contesting elections, enhancing transparency and public awareness.

How Judicial Interventions Reinforce Democratic Principles and the Rule of Law:

• Ensuring State Accountability: Judicial review holds state authorities accountable, preventing misuse of power.
  For example: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of personal liberty, ensuring that no person is deprived of their rights except by due process of law.
• Protecting Fundamental Rights: Judicial interventions safeguard fundamental rights, reinforcing democratic principles.
  For example: The Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) judgment established guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace, protecting women’s rights and promoting a safe working environment.
• Fostering Open Debate: By protecting controversial speech, courts encourage a culture of open debate essential for democracy.
  For example: In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court underscored the importance of internet access for freedom of speech, directing the review of internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir.
• Preventing Authoritarianism: Judicial scrutiny of censorship laws prevents authoritarian misuse of power.
  For example: The Supreme Court’s verdict in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) invalidated a ban on the entry and circulation of a left-wing journal, safeguarding freedom of the press from arbitrary state actions.
• Building Public Trust: Protecting fundamental rights and freedoms builds public trust in judicial and democratic institutions.
  For example: The Supreme Court’s intervention during the Emergency period (1975-77) in cases like ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla reinforced the judiciary’s role in protecting civil liberties, though it later recognized the need to correct its stance to build trust.

Conclusion:

The judiciary’s active role in protecting freedom of expression against undue censorship is vital for upholding democratic values and the rule of law. Future efforts should focus on enhancing judicial independence, ensuring timely interventions, and fostering international judicial cooperation. Comprehensive judicial training on freedom of expression and robust legal frameworks will further balance free speech with societal needs, ensuring a resilient democracy.