New Delhi (ABC Live): Free Speech Rules: The Supreme Court of India recently heard three critical cases concerning freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. These hearings highlight an emerging judicial trend that could significantly narrow the scope of free speech, especially on digital platforms, by encouraging self-censorship and opening the door for government regulation. Legal experts and free speech advocates warn this could further shrink India’s already constrained space for expression.

Overview of the Three Landmark Free Speech Cases

Between Monday and Tuesday, the Supreme Court deliberated on petitions involving cartoonist Hemant Malviya, social media commentator Wazahat Khan, and a disability rights case involving ableist remarks in comics. Despite different facts and judicial benches, these cases share striking similarities in how the Court perceives and handles free speech.

Hemant Malviya Case: Cartoons, Political Critique, and Judicial Caution

Hemant Malviya, a cartoonist, faced FIRs in Madhya Pradesh after sharing years-old cartoons deemed offensive to the Prime Minister, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and a Hindu deity. While the Madhya Pradesh High Court denied him anticipatory bail, reasoning that Malviya had “overstepped” free speech limits, the Supreme Court granted bail but described his cartoons as “inflammatory.” The Court suggested that if Malviya continued posting “derogatory” content, the state could take action against him.

Legal experts point out that this stance departs from the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions, such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), where the Court struck down vague restrictions on online speech. The current approach risks legitimising vague and broad interpretations of “reasonable restrictions,” threatening artistic and political expression.

Wazahat Khan Case: Obscenity Allegations and the Call for Self-Censorship

In the second case, Wazahat Khan faced FIRs in four states over allegedly obscene posts targeting religious devotees. The Supreme Court extended interim relief but issued stern warnings about the “abuse” of free speech, emphasising citizens’ duty to uphold “fraternity.” Notably, the Court raised the prospect of framing judicial guidelines to regulate online speech—a proposal previously criticised for undermining constitutional protections.

Justice BV Nagarathna remarked, “Article 19 is against the State … verticality. What about horizontality?” hinting at a novel theory that free speech may be restricted horizontally between citizens, not just vertically by the state. However, this concept remains legally untested and poses risks to individual liberties.

Disability Rights Petition: Balancing Dignity and Freedom of Speech

The third case involved a disability rights organisation petitioning against ableist remarks in comics. The Court emphasised the right to dignity under Article 21 and controversially stated that dignity must “prevail” over free speech if a conflict arises. Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi suggested government involvement in framing guidelines balancing “freedom” and “duties.”

This approach conflicts with established constitutional law, which treats fundamental rights as co-equal and requires balancing through reasoned inquiry, not hierarchical subordination. Furthermore, fundamental duties, enshrined in Article 51A, are non-justiciable and do not restrict rights.

Judicial Attitudes Raising Concerns Over Free Speech Protections

Legal analysts identify a worrying pattern: a shift from viewing rights as inherent protections against state overreach to conditional privileges granted and withdrawn by the judiciary or state. Courts are increasingly urging “self-restraint” and “respect” as prerequisites for exercising free speech, effectively promoting self-censorship among citizens.

Multiple benches have also paved the way for expanded government regulation of digital speech, threatening to further shrink the democratic space online.

What the Law Says: Key Case Law on Free Speech

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): Affirmed freedom of speech as essential for democracy; restrictions must be narrow and justified.

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Struck down vague online speech restrictions; emphasised precise limits.

• Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965): Upheld obscenity restrictions under community standards.

• Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014): Recognised “right to offend” within free speech limits.

• Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985): Held no hierarchy among fundamental rights; balancing is contextual.

Data on Free Speech and Digital Expression in India

• FIRs related to “offensive” online content have increased by over 70% in the last five years (Internet Freedom Foundation, 2024).

• A Pew Research Centre study (2023) found that 58% of Indians self-censor their social media speech due to fear of legal or social backlash, up from 34% in 2018 (Pew Research Centre).

• Legal actions invoking “dignity” to curb speech increased by 40% recently (Human Rights Watch, 2024).

These statistics highlight a chilling effect on free speech exacerbated by judicial and executive attitudes.

Expert Opinion: Dinesh Singh Rawat, Senior Advocate on Judicial Shifts and Free Speech

Dinesh Singh Rawat, legal analyst and advocate, commented, “The Supreme Court’s emerging stance risks eroding the core constitutional protections for free speech by expanding vague restrictions and endorsing self-censorship. Judicial encouragement of government regulation over digital speech could dangerously constrict India’s democratic discourse.”

Conclusion: The Future of Free Speech in India

The Supreme Court’s recent hearings indicate a judicial shift toward greater restrictions on free speech, especially online. By endorsing self-censorship, elevating dignity over expression without a legal basis, and inviting government regulation, the Court risks undermining the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

Safeguarding democratic values requires vigilance from civil society, legal practitioners, and policymakers to ensure that free speech remains robust, protected, and not unduly curtailed.

Also, Read

PMLA Review 2025: Supreme Court Analysis