Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression Article 19

Introduction	Jurisprudence
Provision	Article 19
Case Laws	Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972) 2 SCC 788 Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161 Shreya Singhal vs Union of India
Conclusion	present problem

What is Freedom of Speech and Expression?

It is the right to express one’s opinions freely, by spoken words, written words, gestures, signs, or through any other form—without fear of punishment or censorship. It encompasses the right to share information, participate in public discourse, and challenge authority. The right to speech also includes the right not to speak.

This right also encompasses the right to access information, as it holds no real value if people are denied the opportunity to know or hear. Based on this understanding, the Right to Information (RTI) is recognized as a fundamental right.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed not only by the Indian Constitution but also by international statutes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (declared on 10th December 1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, etc.

Article 19 (1)(a) defines Freedom of Speech and Expression: All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19(2) puts some restrictions over speech and expression. This right is fundamental right but it has some restrictions. It says that, 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 ofthe 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 offence.

What Does It Include?

1. Speaking freely (in public, private or no social media)
2. Writing articles or books
3. Expressing political views
4. Publishing newspaper and magazines
5. Peaceful protest and demonstrations
6. Arts, music, films, photography, etc.
7. Freedom of the press
8. Access to information

Why Is It Important?

1. Foundation of democracy : democracy works well only if the people have the right to express their opinions about the government and criticise it if needed.
2. Citizens can question the government: Not just in the political sphere, even in other spheres like social, cultural and economic, the people must have their voices heard in a true democracy and can raise their questions to the government.
3. Promotes discussion, debate, and innovation: The voice of the people must be heard and their grievances are satisfied, also promotes innovation.
4. Protects individual dignity and self-expression: the significance of this freedom can be understood from the fact that the Preamble itself ensures to all citizens the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.

Restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Expression

Under Article 19(2), this right has some restrictions and thus it is not absolute right. These are:

1. Security of the State
2. Sovereignty and integrity of India
3. Friendly relations with foreign states
4. Public order
5. Decency or morality
6. Contempt of court
7. Defamation
8. Incitement to an offence

Example:

1. You can criticize the government peacefully (protected).
2. But you cannot:Spread fake news that causes violence (restricted)
3. Use abusive language publicly (morality)
4. Defame someone or a community (defamation)

Case Laws

Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India

Facts: The Government, under the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73, imposed certain restrictions on the use of newsprint due to a shortage in India. This policy allowed the government to import newsprint from foreign countries under the Import Order Act.The restrictions are as follows:1. Companies that already own two or more newspapers, with at least one being a daily publication, cannot launch any new newspapers.2. No newspaper can exceed ten pages.3. Newspapers with fewer than ten pages may only increase their page count by a maximum of 20%.4. Newspapers owned by the same company, or different versions of the same newspaper, cannot share or exchange their newsprint supplies.In this case, the petitioners are media conglomerates challenging these restrictions, arguing that they violate their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution. Issue: Whether the petitioners, being corporate entities, had the standing to invoke fundamental rights? Whether clauses 3 and 3A of clause 3 of the 1962 Newsprint Order infringed upon the provisions of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution? Whether the restrictions imposed on newsprint import under the 1955 Order amounted to a violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? Judgement: The court stated that freedom of the press is a fundamental aspect of our right to free speech, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. They clarified that while the government can regulate the amount of newsprint available to newspapers, it cannot impose restrictions on the number of pages a newspaper can publish. Imposing page limits negatively affects newspapers, as it can either reduce their advertising revenue or force them to decrease the amount of news they provide. This, in turn, hinders the public’s access to essential information. The court determined that freedom of the press encompasses both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. Consequently, rules that limit the quantity of material that newspapers can produce are considered restrictions on free speech. Given that there was no shortage of paper, these limitations were deemed unfair. Therefore, the paper regulations from 1972-73 were ruled illegal. However, other paper-related regulations that did not contribute to the problem were upheld. The court held that the policy is unconstitutional, violating the right to press under Article 19.

Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal

Facts: The Bengal Cricket Association (CAB) informed Doordarshan (DD), the national television station, that they would be holding a major cricket tournament in November. They invited DD to submit a proposal for broadcasting the games, offering two options:1. DD could manage everything, including filming and broadcasting the games themselves.2. Alternatively, they could allow someone else to film the games, and DD would pay for the rights to broadcast them on Indian television.CAB specified that they would retain the rights to show the games outside of India, having already made a deal with a foreign company called TWI. CAB indicated that TWI and other international companies were offering significantly more than 20 million rupees for the broadcasting rights. They suggested that DD respond promptly. CAB requested that DD make a final decision by October 21st. However, DD replied on October 27th, stating that they did not accept CAB’s offer and would not take the broadcast feed from TWI. On November 8th, CAB approached the court, asking the judge to compel DD to broadcast the games and provide all necessary equipment. In turn, on November 15th, DD also went to court, accusing CAB of violating court orders. Issue: Can a government agency like DD claim to be the host broadcaster for all events, whether the event is produced or organized by themselves or someone else in the country? Is either the airwaves or frequencies come under the public domain or public property? Judgement: The court found that radio waves can be likened to public roads: they are essential for everyone, and therefore, the government must manage them fairly to prevent any single entity from monopolizing them.Since television and radio both utilize these waves, there are regulations regarding their usage, similar to those for other public resources. The Supreme Court stated that obtaining and sharing information is a fundamental aspect of our right to free speech. This means people have the right to watch television.However, because radio waves are involved, the government has the authority to monitor the situation and enforce regulations, as long as these rules are reasonable and consistent with the Constitution.Additionally, the court emphasized that the government must establish an independent organization to manage these radio waves, one that is not under direct government control and represents the interests of the public.The court also highlighted the dangers of having a single source of information, whether it comes from the government or a private company, as this is detrimental to free speech. They pointed out that private companies might be even more inclined to restrict free speech than government-run media. The key takeaway is that broadcasting should be under the control of the public rather than solely governed by the government, which is vital for upholding our right to free speech. Court held that broadcasting is a fundamental right, that the government’s monopoly was not constitutional, and that an independent body was needed to regulate broadcasting in the public interest.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India

Facts: Section 66A of IT Act says that anything shared through electronic devices which is offensive shall be punishable. This section is challenged by Shreya in Supreme Court through PIL as it violates article 19 and 14. This case was filed after multiple arrest including 2 girls arrested for using social media to post their opinion on the death of a political leader.
Issue: Whether Section 66A violates article 19? Whether restrictions imposed Section 66A are reasonable under Article 19(2)? Whether Section 66A is vague and capable of misuse?
Judgment: The court held that Section 66A infringed upon the right under article 19. The words used, “offensive”, “menacing” and “annoyance”, were vague and undefined. This vagueness led to arbitrary enforcement which is against the principle of natural justice. The court said that Section 66A does not directly relate to any of the permissible grounds, such as sovereignty, integrity or public order. The court highlighted “chilling effect” that Section 66A could have on free speech as people might refrain from expressing themselves due to fear of prosecution. It was held that this section was struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional.

PRESENT PROBLEM

3. Ms. B has strong legal grounds to challenge the notification based on:
Violation of article 19(1)(g) and (1)(a).
Non-compliance with procedural requirements under existing rules.
Disproportionate restriction without exploring less restrictive alternatives.

She should file a writ petition under article 226 or 32 seeking quashing of the notification and restoration of internet services.