Navigating the Fine Line: The Complexities of Freedom of Speech in India
Understanding Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to democracy, and infringing upon this right undermines its core principles. However, does this right allow individuals to freely express their thoughts on public matters? It is often said that freedom comes with responsibilities, and one must exercise caution to avoid offending others. The challenge lies in determining where to draw the line between free expression and the need for restraint. Each individual must navigate this delicate balance, akin to standing at the edge of a cliff and deciding whether to step forward or retreat.
This area is indeed murky, with individuals and authorities sometimes exploiting the freedom of speech or suppressing voices deemed critical of government actions. In India, this issue has persisted for decades, but the rise of digital platforms has complicated matters, allowing a single social media post to reach vast audiences.
On July 14, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of understanding the value of free speech and the necessity for self-regulation among citizens. The Court also considered establishing guidelines to manage offensive content on social media. This discussion arose during a hearing involving Wazahat Khan, who faced multiple FIRs for controversial posts on X regarding a Hindu deity. The Court had previously granted him temporary protection from coercive measures until July 14. Interestingly, Khan had also lodged a complaint against another influencer, Sharmistha Panoli, for allegedly making communal comments in a video. The saying 'one man's meat is another man's poison' resonates strongly in today's climate, where sensitivity to criticism is heightened.
Justice Nagarathna reiterated the significance of the fundamental right to free speech, acknowledging that the State has a role in intervening during violations, even if such actions may not always align with the ideals of freedom. The Bench noted that divisive tendencies on social media must be addressed, clarifying that this does not equate to censorship.
The Bench stated, 'There should be fraternity among citizens,' highlighting the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution regarding freedom of speech and expression, which they deemed appropriate.
Meanwhile, the Court extended Khan's interim protection from arrest until the next hearing and requested assistance in addressing the broader issue of self-regulation in free speech.
The complexities surrounding free speech have often posed challenges for the apex court, which has articulated its legal interpretations through various rulings. Recent cases illustrate this complexity. On March 28, 2025, a Bench led by former Justice AS Oka quashed an FIR against MP Imran Pratapgarhi for reciting an Urdu poem that was alleged to incite communal discord. The Bench concluded that the poem did not promote such tensions in any conceivable way, emphasizing that police officers must consider Article 19(1)(a) and its reasonable restrictions when interpreting the law.
A few months later, Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh granted interim bail to Ashoka University Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who had been arrested for online posts about Operation Sindoor. However, the bail conditions prohibited him from making any online statements related to the military operation.
Shortly after the Mahmudabad ruling, the release of Kamal Haasan's film Thug Life faced obstacles in Karnataka due to his comments on the Kannada language. The Karnataka High Court required the actor to apologize, but when the case reached the Supreme Court, Justices Bhuyan and Manmohan declared that an extrajudicial ban on a film was unlawful and did not support the apology requirement.
The issue of free speech remains intricate, and judicial pronouncements on the matter evoke a mix of hope and concern.