Freedom of Speech and Expression Article 19
Written By:- Bhargavi Rajurkar
Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right that allows an individual or a community to express their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs without the fear of punishment, censorship, or retaliation. It envisages various forms of communication, which include spoken words, writing, printing, music, art, and peaceful protest.
This right plays a pivotal role in our democracy as it enables the open exchange of thoughts and fosters active public participation in the government. Without free speech, a democratic society cannot function effectively.
Here are the essential elements of this freedom:
- Citizenship Requirement: This right is available only to a citizen of India and does not extend to foreign nationals.
- Protection of Dissent: It protects the right to express unpopular thoughts and views, even if they are offensive to others or the majority opinion.
- Information Flow: It allows for the free flow of information and ideas, which is vital for maintaining a well-informed citizenry.
- Not Absolute: This is not an absolute right. The Government of India is empowered to frame laws that can impose “reasonable restrictions” in cases involving national sovereignty, security, or public order.
Constitutional Validity
In India, the constitutional validity of freedom of speech and expression is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This article guarantees all citizens the right to “freedom of speech and expression.” However, this right is subject to certain reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2).
Article 19(1)(a) – The Guarantee of Freedom
Article 19(1)(a) states:
“All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
This fundamental right empowers individuals to express their opinions and ideas without fear of government censorship. It covers a wide spectrum of activities including spoken and written words, gestures, signs, artistic expression, and digital communication.
Article 19(2) – Reasonable Restrictions
While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right, Article 19(2) provides the specific grounds on which this right can be reasonably restricted. These restrictions are necessary to ensure that the exercise of liberty by one individual does not harm the collective interest of the nation.
Article 19(2) states:
“Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.”
The 8 Grounds for Restriction: The State can impose restrictions only based on these specific grounds:
- Sovereignty and Integrity of India: To protect the unity and territorial integrity of the nation.
- Security of the State: To safeguard against internal and external threats to national security.
- Friendly Relations with Foreign States: To maintain diplomatic equilibrium and prevent international conflict.
- Public Order: To prevent actions or speech that could disrupt public peace or cause riots.
- Decency or Morality: To uphold societal moral standards and prevent obscenity.
- Contempt of Court: To maintain the authority, dignity, and trust in the judiciary.
- Defamation: To protect the reputation and honor of other individuals.
- Incitement to an Offense: To prevent speech that encourages or instigates illegal activities.
The Need for Safeguards
Why do we need these restrictions on such a vital right? The rationale includes:
- State Security: Speech can be weaponized against the State to spread hatred or incite rebellion, threatening national security.
- Social Balance: Freedom is more purposeful if it is coupled with responsibility. A balance must be struck between individual liberty and social control.
- Collective Interest: Certain prior restrictions are necessary to meet the collective interest of society rather than just individual gratification.
- Protection of Others’ Rights: Any speech has the potential to harm a large group of people. Reasonable restrictions ensure that the rights of others are not hindered by the acts of one person.
Freedom of Speech vs. Freedom of Expression
“Freedom of speech” is often used interchangeably with the broader concept of “freedom of expression,” but there is a technical distinction:
- Freedom of Speech: Focuses primarily on the spoken idea or verbal communication.
- Freedom of Expression: Includes a much wider scope. It encompasses verbal, written, visual, and symbolic communication. This includes music, painting, films, and symbolic acts like displaying a flag or wearing a specific badge.
Both are fundamental human rights, but ‘expression’ is the umbrella term that covers the medium through which the speech is delivered.
Judicial Interpretation: Landmark Case Laws
The Judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting the scope and limitations of freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark judgments to balance individual freedoms with societal interests.
1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) The Supreme Court observed that freedom of the press lies at the foundation of all democratic organizations. Without political opposition and free media, a democracy cannot thrive.
2. K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) The Supreme Court clarified the stance on cinema. It held that censorship of films, including pre-censorship, was constitutionally valid in India. It serves as a reasonable restriction imposed under Article 19(2) due to the strong impact of the visual medium.
3. Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India (1972) The Supreme Court struck down the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, which fixed the maximum number of pages a newspaper could publish. The Court held this to be violative of Article 19(1)(a) and ruled that it was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
4. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) In this historic judgment, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression is not confined to national boundaries. A citizen has the right to express themselves globally.
5. Indian Express v. Union of India (1985) The Court reiterated that the Press plays a significant role in democratic machinery. The Courts have a duty to uphold the freedom of the press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom.
6. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) Commonly known as the National Anthem case, the Supreme Court held that the “right to speak” also includes the right to remain silent. Forcing someone to sing against their conscientious belief violates their freedom of expression.
Conclusion
Civil society provides one of the most basic guarantees to citizens: freedom of expression.
In conclusion, we can state that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a vital fundamental right. Its scope has been significantly widened by judicial interpretation to include the freedom of the press, the right to information (including commercial information), the right to not speak, and the right to criticize. However, citizens must exercise this right responsibly, adhering to the reasonable restrictions that ensure the safety and order of the nation.
References:
- Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950
- K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, 1970
- Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, 1972
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986