FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER ARTICLE 19

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 540

This article is written by Ananya Banerjee, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Abstract

In both ancient and modern times, humanity has yearned for the right to express themselves freely. Similar to censorship, reasonable limitations are a long-standing and commonplace phenomenon. Because they were aware that contradictory rights and restrictions may coexist, the authors of the Indian constitutions included a specific reference to reasonable restrictions in Article 19 of their document. With the help of the Indian Judicial System’s progressive rulings, this has further developed.

An ordered community cannot have complete freedom of expression, which raises important questions about the appropriate boundaries for such constraints. These questions require taking into account the type of limitation, its extent and length, as well as if there is an effective corrective mechanism in place to dispute the restriction. In most cases, the judiciary is responsible for resolving disputes.

Introduction

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution defines freedom of speech and expression as the right to free speech and free expression for all Indian citizens. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution, “where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizens, their liberty of thought and expression,” contains the idea underlying this Article. However, under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, there are some reasonable limitations imposed on the exercise of this freedom. The Preamble of the Constitution contains a solemn resolution to provide liberty of thought and expression to all of its citizens, which forms the basis for this Article’s philosophy. However, under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, “reasonable restrictions” may be placed on the use of this freedom for specific purposes.

Essential ingredients of Article 19

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

This right is only available to Indian citizens; foreign nationals are not allowed to exercise it.

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.

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.

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.

Freedom of speech and expression in the following fields

Press: Press freedom In contrast to the USA, Art. 19(1)(a) does not specifically include press and speech freedom. In an English case from 1784, Lord Mansfield defined press freedom as the ability to publish materials without prior authorization while yet being subject to the law. A person is not required to obtain permission before publishing or making something publicly available under the freedom of the press, but they are still responsible for any legal repercussions that may result, just like any other citizen. In this sense, printing has been free in England since the end of the 18th century. Print media and television broadcasting are included in the treatment of all of these platforms as press. There is no distinction between the press as a whole and regular citizens in terms of privileges related to the freedom of speech and expression, which includes the implied freedom of the press. As a result, the press is likewise bound by the country’s general laws and accountable for the results of their actions just like any other citizen. In the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, The Bombay-published notification prohibiting the publication, sale, or distribution of the crossroads newspaper in the state of Madras, or any portion of it, was found to be invalid.

Cinema: The ability of a filmmaker to convey their ideas through the medium of film has been included in the ambit of the right to freedom of speech and expression. The filmmaker’s ability to express themselves through their work, however, may be constrained if the film endangers the nation’s security, sovereignty, or peace, among other things. Prior to this, the Cinematograph Act of 1952 and the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules of 1983 specify the guidelines and procedure for film censorship and certification of films deemed appropriate for public viewing. In the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, where the film was given a “U” rating after some sequences were cut, but the High Court revoked the said rating since it would impair societal cohesion before several contentious scenes in the film. In its ruling on the subject, the Honourable Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and stated that since the right to freedom of speech and expression was conferred against the state, it was the responsibility of the government to uphold it.

Demonstrations

Three Fundamental Rights—freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement—are frequently exercised during demonstrations. The right to free speech and expression can be viewed as being exercised through demonstrations. They are peaceful forms of influence. The Indian Constitution recognises democratic rights, subject to reasonable limitations, such as the right to hold public meetings, participate in parades, carry banners, and conduct peaceful protests. In the famous Re Venegan case, where the petitioner went to a store and shouted that no one should buy anything there since the owner was a “north Indian” while waving black cards and flags. The Court determined that because the petitioner was interfering with the shopkeeper’s ability to conduct business, his actions fell outside the purview of Art. 19(1)(a).

Why freedom of speech is important

The idea of freedom of speech and expression opens up avenues for unrestricted discussion of topics in a democracy like India. In the formation and presentation of public opinion on social, economic, and political issues across the nation, freedom of expression is crucial. It guarantees, within its purview, the freedom connected to the exchange and propagation of ideas, the dissemination of information that would subsequently aid in the development of one’s opinion and position on certain subjects and give rise to debates on issues that concern the general public. The usage of the national flag as a means of expressing those thoughts would be a Fundamental Right as long as the expression is limited to nationalism, patriotism, and love for our country.

The right to communicate and receive any information without interference is a key component of this right, according to the independent judiciary of India, which has held and expressed its opinion on the matter. This right also includes the right to freedom of speech and expression. This is due to the fact that without receiving sufficient information, a person cannot successfully engage in society, politics, or culture or create an informed opinion or make an informed choice.

A print medium is a potent weapon for reaching every resident of the country with any kind of information. So, in order to fully exercise one’s constitutionally protected right to free speech and expression, one must have access to printed materials. Any failure on the part of the State to enact legislation enabling access to information in alternative accessible formats for those who have print disabilities would be a violation of their right to freedom of speech and expression, and such a failure on the part of the State would be in violation of the Constitution. The State has a duty to see that adequate legal provisions are put in place to allow those who have trouble seeing print to access printed content in accessible formats. Press freedom is already included in the freedom of expression that is granted to all country citizens, hence it is not a distinct protection under the Freedom of Speech and Expression Act.

Reasonable restriction

According to the Constitution, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression “in the interest of” or “in relation to” the general public. This includes refraining from using any language with the intent to undermine the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity or to put the state and its citizens’ security and safety at risk from both external and internal forces. Additionally, it is forbidden to use language that is meant to denigrate or abuse another person, and using any form of communication calls for upholding a specific standard of morality and decency. Furthermore, exercising one’s right to freedom of speech and expression does not constitute a permission or endorsement of any act or omission that would constitute a criminal offence. The Indian Constitution’s article 19(2) restricts the use of words that scandalise the authority and dignity of the judiciary and states that freedom of expression cannot be used as a defence against contempt of court.

Grounds on which freedom of speech can be restricted:

The state may impose legitimate restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression on a variety of grounds. These limitations are outlined in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which places limitations on free expression under the following headings:

Security of the state: The freedom of speech and expression may be subject to some justifiable constraints in areas related to national security. Because they are similar yet differ in terms of severity, the phrases “public order” and “security of the State” must be distinguished from one another. The security of the state therefore refers to extreme and aggravated kinds of public disorder, including insurrection, warring against the state even if it is against a portion of the state, etc. as examples.

Friendly relations with foreign countries: 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 impose reasonable limits.

Public order: In order to address the situation created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Romesh Thapar v. The State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124), this cause for the restriction was also introduced by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Public order is quite different from law and order and state security, according to the Indian Supreme Court. ‘Public order’ refers to a state of tranquillity, safety, and peace throughout society. Anything that upsets public tranquillity also disturbs the general populace. However, merely criticising the administration does not disrupt the peace. A law that offends a group’s religious sensibilities has been upheld as a legal and reasonable restriction intended to preserve public order.

Decency and morality: The Indian Penal Code of 1860, which outlaws the sale, distribution, or display of profane language, specifies them in Sections 292 to 294. On these occasions, the exercise of one’s right to freedom of expression is constrained for reasons of morality and decency.

Contempt of court: The ability to speak freely does not in any way justify disrespecting the legal system. Section 2 of the 1971 Contempt of Courts Act defines the term “contempt of court.” The phrase “contempt of court” refers to either civil or criminal contempt as defined by the Act.

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. 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. Although “truth” is regarded as a defence against defamation, the defence would only be helpful if the remark was made “for the good of the public,” which is a factual issue that should be determined by the independent judiciary.

Incitement to an offence: The Constitution further forbids a person from making any statements that incite or urge others to commit a crime, another ground added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951.

Sovereignty and integrity of India: The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act of 1963 later added this ground. This is simply intended to forbid or limit individuals from publicly criticising the nation’s integrity and sovereignty.

Some recent judgments:

In the recent case of Prashant Bhushan and Anr, a supreme court advocate named Prashant Bhushan was accused of criminal contempt of court after the high court itself took suo moto cognizance of the matter. The aforementioned attorney had sent two tweets, one of which made a comment on a picture of CJI S. A. Bobde was riding a luxury bike and the other of which discussed the roles played by four former CJIs over the course of the previous six years. One of the case’s related questions was whether or not the right defence under article 19(1)(a) could be invoked. When determining the case on August 31, 2020, the Supreme Court made the following observation in its ruling: “No doubt, one is free to form an opinion and make fair criticism, but if such an opinion is scandalous and malicious, the public expression of the same would also be at the risk of the contempt jurisdiction.”

In a different case, Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India and Ors. the petitioner, a well-known TV journalist, filed a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution in the supreme court in response to several FIRs that were filed against him and violated his fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and press freedom, which are granted under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. After the journalist raised concerns about Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s silence on the execution of two sages in Palghar during his debate show, the FIRs were filed. When ruling in favour of the petitioner. The supreme court stated in its ruling that “the exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a)” after ruling in the petitioner’s favour. The petitioner is a journalist in the media. According to Article 19(1)(a), he is exercising his basic right to speech and expression by airing his opinions on the television programmes he presents.

Conclusion:

One of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is the right to express one’s opinions through speech. In the modern world, however, the right to freedom of speech also includes the right to disseminate one’s opinions in writing, through audiovisual media, or through any other form of communication. In addition, this right includes the freedom of the press, the right to knowledge, etc. Thus, it is clear from this text that the idea of freedom is crucial to the efficient operation of a democratic state.

The phrases “in the interest of public order” and “reasonable restrictions” from Article 19 of the Indian Constitution serve as reminders that the rights guaranteed in this section are not unqualified and that they may be subject to limitations in order to protect the safety of other citizens, preserve public order, and uphold morality.

References: