The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is the foundation on which the edifice of a healthy democracy rests. It strengthens the capacity of a common citizen to be expressly political and participate in decision making. Human history is replete with examples like the American Civil Rights Movement where this freedom incentivised positive social change. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all the citizens the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Despite its laundry list of positive functions this freedom isn’t absolute. The Indian Constitution, through reasonable restrictions specified in Article 19(2) limits Freedom of Speech and Expression. Laws like the Anti-Blasphemy Law, the Criminal Defamation Law and the Sedition Law also curb this freedom.

Due to the vague and repressive nature of these laws they are frequently misused by governments to silence dissenters. This paper attempts to study the reasonable restrictions specified in Article 19(2) and examine the role of vague and repressive laws to limit Freedom of Speech and Expression.

The Supreme Court has held Press Freedom to be a part of Article 19(1)(a). Press Freedom is explained as freedom from interference from authority which would have the effect of interference with content and circulation of newspapers.[1]This paper also attempts to analyse the extent of independence the press enjoys in India.

Introduction
The right to Freedom of Speech and Expression acts as a firewall for democracy protecting it from the menace of tyranny and despotism. It is regarded as a basic human right and inalienable part of modern liberal societies. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution posits All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also upholds this freedom. In its true sense having the right to Freedom of Speech and Expression means having the right to freely express our own beliefs and opinions without the fear of repercussions. The Supreme Court gave us the liberty to exercise it by any mode of communication when it propounded Freedom of Speech and Expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation in Romesh Thapar v State of Madras.[2] Freedom of Speech is a part of Freedom of Expression.

Through speech we only express our beliefs and opinions, expression can manifest itself in anything we do. The kind of food we eat is an expression of our food choices, the kind of clothes we wear is an expression of our personalities. Every person has a unique way of expressing themselves. Freedom of Speech and Expression in its true form protects and also incentivises this diversity among people.

Freedom of speech and expression has many broad purposes to serve in society. It helps an individual to attain self-fulfilment, it assists in the discovery of truth, it strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making and it provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change.[3] Considering its importance, it is befitting that Freedom of speech and expression is a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Research Problems
There has been a lot of debate and discussion regarding the state of freedom of speech and expression in India during the recent times. The exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression faces a lot to challenges like- imposition of restrictions through the misuse of some substantive laws and imposition of unreasonable restrictions on its use. The research paper attempts to investigate into all these problems.

Furthermore, it also attempts to investigate into the problems that the press experiences in the dissemination of information. The freedom of press is an inherent aspect of the right to freedom of speech and expression. It is faced with problems such as- the covert use of power to stifle dissent in media, use of criminal defamation to curb press freedom by draining the media of its resources, the restriction to gain knowledge regarding any issue through the amendments enacted in the RTI Act of 2005.

Existing Legal Situation
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution guarantees to every Indian citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. The constitution does not grant an absolute range on the enjoyment of the freedom, it imposes some caveats on its exercise. The caveats or reasonable restrictions on the exercise of Article 19(1)(a) are specified under Article 19(2).

The grounds for the restrictions are:
security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, integrity and sovereignty of India. Statutory provisions such as the sedition law, anti-blasphemy law and the criminal defamation law draw powers from the grounds on which the constitution restricts Article 19(1)(a).

Section 124 A of the IPC defines the offence of sedition. It is a criminal offence which attempts to restrict public order’s disruption causing activity. The offence of anti-blasphemy law is defined under the section of 295 A of the IPC. It envisages to put a stop on acts which outrage the sentiments of a religious group of people. Criminal defamation is defined under section 499 of the IPC. It attempts to criminally penalise attempts to put imputations on the reputation of any person or entity.

The freedom of press is not explicitly guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has held it to be an implicit part of it in the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras[4].

Literature Review
V. Govindu, Contradictions In Freedom Of Speech And Expression [2011] 72 IJPS 641, 650
This paper tries to showcase the scope-provisions, purpose and limitations of freedom of speech and expression. The primary objective of the paper is to analyse and examine the contradictions in the freedom of speech and expression, when expressed through the press, public, and other mediums like movies. It discusses in detail the limits that have been used to curb the freedom of press. The paper also discusses in detail the instances that took place in Andhra Pradesh where attempts were made to put restrictions on the exercise of freedom of speech and expression.

Siddharth Narrain, Disaffection and the Law:
The Chilling Effect of the Sedition Laws in India [2011] EPW 33, 37

The paper concerns itself with providing an analysis and the impact of the sedition law in India. It describes the sedition trials of different freedom fighters like- Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi during the British rule in India. The paper also provides a historic perspective of the sedition law; it describes the way in which the law was enacted in British India, and how did it continue to be in force under independent India. It also talks about the different cases pertaining to the law and the judgements of those cases.

Sheikh Tajammul-ul-Islam:
Is Indian Media Free from State Control? An Appraisal [2019] PP 27, 40

The paper discusses the freedom that the Indian media enjoys. It makes a claim that the Indian media is not objective and rather a biased media conglomerate. It enjoys the protection of the government and peddles its narrative. It particularly focuses on the conduct of the Indian media after the abrogation of Article 370. It concludes that the media or the press in India is not free and the reports that it chooses to publish leads to violence and riots.

Research Questions

• What are the grounds on which the Constitution limits the Freedom of Speech and Expression
• What are the vague and draconian laws used to curb Free Speech and Expression?
• How do governments misuse laws to limit Free Speech and Expression?
• How cultural and religious norms limit the Freedom of Speech and Expression?

Scope And Objectives
Scope
The scope of the paper is to discuss the various restrictions that have been imposed on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression. The restrictions that it concerns itself with are constitutional, statutory, and religious and cultural. It attempts to discuss and understand the reasonable restrictions, provide a critical analysis to various statutory provisions like the sedition law, and analyse the freedom that the press enjoys in India.

Objectives

• To understand the term Reasonable Restrictions specified in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution
• To examine the role of vague and draconian laws in limiting Freedom of Speech and Expression.
• To analyse the extent of independence the press enjoys in India.

Methodology And Division Of Chapters
Methodology
The methodology adopted for the purpose of conducting research on the topic of the research paper is purely doctrinal. Primary and secondary resources comprising judgements, books and journal articles have been used for the purpose of conducting the research. It is a purely interpretative and analytical study.

Division Of Chapters

1. The second chapter of the paper tries to understand and discuss the meaning of the term reasonable restrictions. Furthermore, it also enlists the grounds on which the exercise of Article 19(1)(a) is restricted
2. The third chapter of the paper analyses the sedition law and sheds light on the way governments misuse it to curb free speech.
3. The fourth chapter analyses the anti-blasphemy law and elucidates how is it susceptible to misuse.
4. The fifth chapter discusses the issue of press freedom. It spells out how governments try to influence the press and have a command on its narrative. It further discusses the challenges that it faces and the deteriorating levels of its freedom.
5. The sixth chapter contains the conclusion of the all the preceding discussions. It also contains some recommendations to tackle the problems that plague the exercise of freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19(1)(A) And Article 19(2) Of The Indian Constitution

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution states:
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc:

1. All citizens shall have the right:
   
   1. to freedom of speech and expression[5].
      The language of clause (1) of Article 19 might lead people to believe that right to Freedom of Speech and Expression specified in sub-clause (a) is absolute but the subsequent clause i.e., clause (2) explicitly asserts that there are some caveats to this freedom. Article 19(2) states:
       
2. 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 offence[6].

Clause (2) of Article 19 provides a list of Reasonable Restrictions which can be used to limit Free Speech and Expression. Other substantive laws like the Anti-Blasphemy Law and the Criminal Defamation Law draw power from these restrictions.

The point of debate pertaining to Article 19(2) has always been related to the meaning of the term Reasonable Restrictions. The usage of the term Reasonable before Restrictions implies that the restrictions instituted shouldn’t be arbitrary or excessive in nature. The curtailment of the fundamental rights that Article 19(1) guarantees should be governed by the faculties of reason and logic and not be influenced by the whims and fancies of the government of the day.

The argument for imposition of restrictions on the exercise of Free Speech and Expression has been put forward by Das, J., in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[7]. He believes that social interest in individual liberty may sometimes have to be subordinated for the greater social good. He also lays emphasis on creating a balance between individual rights guranteed under Article 19(1) and the restrictions that are imposed upon it by the state.

The language of Article 19 suggests that the freedoms enlisted under it are guaranteed only to the citizens of India. An alien or a foreign citizen has no rights guranteed under this article since he is not a citizen of India.

The test for reasonableness has to be applied to each individual statute impugned and no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The meaning would vary according to which of the six rights guaranteed under clause (1) is being restricted by the impugned law[8]. There are some guidelines which are used to determine whether a restriction imposed is reasonable or not. They are

• Reasonableness demands proper balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19.[9]
• Reasonableness of a statute is determined by the nature of the restriction and procedure prescribed by the statute for enforcing the restriction on the individual freedom.[10]
• Reasonableness has to be determined in an objective manner and from the standpoint of the interests of the general public and not from the point of view of the person upon whom the restrictions are imposed or upon abstract considerations[11].
• Reasonableness demands that the restriction imposed on the exercise of any Fundamental Right must have a rational nexus with the object that the legislation seeks to achieve.[12]

Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(2)

Clause (2) of Article 19 enables the legislature to impose restrictions to Freedom of Speech and Expression. The grounds under which Freedom of Speech and Expression can be curtailed are as follows

1. Security of the State
2. Friendly relations with foreign States
3. Public Order
4. Decency or Morality
5. Contempt of Court
6. Defamation
7. Incitement to an offence
8. Integrity and Sovereignty of India[13]

Sedition

This anachronism is the legacy of the British rule in India. Sedition is defined under section 124 A of the IPC. It can be inferred by the language of the section that it has a very wide scope. The British enacted such a law to crush even the mildest acts deemed to be antithetical to the colonial rule. Some of the greatest freedom fighters like- Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Jawaharlal Nehru were charged and convicted under this law.

Pleading before a trial court Mahatma Gandhi had said:
What in law is a deliberate crime…appears to me the highest duty of the citizen.[14] He considered the sedition law to be prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.[15]

He said before the court that, I have studied some of the cases tried under it (section 124A of IPC) and I know that some of the most loved of India’s patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section.[16]

The primary question before the courts after independence was about the constitutionality of Section 124-A. The Punjab High Court in Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State[17] held the section ultra vires the Constitution. The judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab High Court was in consonance with the then limits to Article 19(1) specified in Article 19(2). The first constitutional amendment of 1951 tweaked Article 19(2). It added a ground of public order on which the state could limit the right to freedom of speech and expression.[18]

Subsequently, in a case called Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar[19] the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a contrary stance regarding the constitutionality of the sedition law. Owing to the addition of the phrase ‘public order’ in the ambit of reasonable restrictions the apex court held the law to be constitutionally valid. However, the Hon’ble Court gave the section a new interpretation which was contrary to the interpretation of the pre-independence era.

The Supreme Court posited that the section should be interpreted in a way that only public disruption or public disorder causing activities come under its purview. The first amendment and the Supreme Court’s judgement in Kedar Nath Singh which followed it, in a way gave birth to a situation where the sedition law which perpetuated the enslavement of Indians (under a tyrannical government) earned a constitutionally valid status (under a democracy).

Sedition tries to inhibit the attempts to overthrow a government established by law, by words either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation. It is humbly contended that the language of the law doesn't establish a concrete distinction between dissent and attempt to overthrow governments established by law. It is very important to value this distinction so that benign acts of criticism (essential for a healthy democracy) do not tantamount to sedition. The interpretation put forward by the Supreme Court also dosen’t help to reconcile this ambiguity because the police either willingly or unwillingly ignore it while implementing the law.

Governments frequently misuse the sedition law and have weaponised it to silence their dissenters. People who dare to criticise the government and its policies find themselves locked up and booked on false charges under this section. The current NCRB’s data suggests that 93 cases of sedition have been filed in 2019, up from 70 in 2018 and 51 in 2017. The conviction rate in sedition cases was 3.3%, which is a precipitous drop from 33.3% in 2016. 179 cases of sedition were filed between 2014 and 2016.

Yet, no charge sheet had been filed in over 80% of cases before the end of 2016. The trial had only started in 10% of cases. So, in most of these cases, the sedition law became an instrument of suppression, where the police didn’t even file a charge sheet and the booked people just languished in prison. Spending a long period of time without a trial in jail is the punishment people booked with false charges of sedition face.[20]

Nowadays a lot of people are being booked under sedition based on the colonial interpretation of the law rather than the interpretation propounded by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar[21] i.e., people who criticise or do acts against the state (not amounting to public disorder causing activities). This is an example of Etymological Fallacy[22].

It refers to arguments based on the original meaning of a thing rather than its prevalent meaning e.g

• X was defined as Z
• X is defined as Y
• So, X is Z.

Though this law relates to offences against the State (which is evident by the language of the section) the prevalent perception among the citizens is that this law relates to offences against the nation. The people charged with this law are branded as Anti-Nationals i.e., people against India, which is absolutely devoid of any logic. A student activist who raised a slogan of Pakistan Zindabad at a rally in Bengaluru was charged with sedition.[23] School Authority of Shaheen Group of Institutions in Bidar Karnataka and a parent of one of the participating students were charged with Sedition due to organising a play on CAA and NRC protests performed by the students in the school campus.[24]

Can raising a slogan like Pakistan Zindabad or performing a play depicting the CAA, NRC protests tantamount to offences against the state? Or can these activities be classified as public disruption or public disorder causing activities? Taking into consideration the interpretation put forward by the Supreme Court it is humbly contended that they don’t. The people involved in these activities were still booked on charges under this section (all people have been granted bail now).

The Common Law legal system that governs India grants the police and prosecutors vast discretion in who they may pursue and who they may spare in a case. Nevertheless, the choice of selecting the accused shouldn’t be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution including the Article 14 which guarantees equal protection of the law. Dissenters and political opponents often face sedition charges due to their opposition towards the government of the day.

The vague nature and the wide scope of the law makes it a favourite law for governments to misuse. It could be restricted if the Indian courts recognise ‘Selective Prosecution’[25] as a defence for the people who are charged under the law.

Anti-Blasphemy Law

Religion and traditions play a huge role in a common Indian’s life. People revere their gods and their practices so much so that sometimes the line between superstition and religious practices gets blurred. This phenomenon can be seen throughout India across different religions and regions.

Extreme reactions can be expected out of a people who feel that their symbol of faith has been desecrated. The nature of the act of desecration (physical or non-physical) in such a situation becomes irrelevant. Situations involving high passions generally lead to violence. Fearing such confrontations governments over the world have enacted laws to penalise blasphemous acts. These laws are generally enacted at the cost of freedom of speech and expression.

When we talk about the blasphemy law the point to remember is that, it provides remedies for only the offended, the so-called offender is penalised. Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000 which recognised the Right to be Offended was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India[26]. The section penalised offensive messages sent through a computer, or any other device like – mobile phone, or a tablet.

The anti-blasphemy law is specified under section 295 A of the IPC. There was a verbose debate regarding the constitutionality of the anti-blasphemy law which was resolved by the Supreme Court in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P.[27]. The court held that – section does not penalise every act of insult to or attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalises only those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class[28].

The Supreme Court envisages only malicious acts to be punishable under this section but the opinion of many High Courts differ. The High Courts have posited in many cases that it is irrelevant to prove that the act perpetrated by accused was deliberate and bore malicious intention of offending religious sentiments.[29] A voluntary act without a lawful excuse may be presumed to be malicious. Furthermore, truth is not a defence to a charge under this section.[30]

What is to be considered as blasphemous?
is the question that the courts appear to be struggling with. The courts are no exception, it is quite a tough job to ascertain what are blasphemous acts. It is humbly contended that having a standard for ascertaining blasphemy is extremely difficult to achieve. This elusiveness can be attributed to the fact that it is impossible to determine the acts that people might find to be offensive. Every person has his/her own definition of acceptable and unacceptable acts, which are predicated on his/her subjective belief in his/her religion. Lord Rama is a revered figure among almost all the Hindus, Ravan on the other hand does not hold such a position. He is worshiped by some Hindus out of their devotion towards him.

Ravan Dahan is a religious programme- which has displays of an effigy of Ravan being burnt symbolising his death- which celebrates the killing of Ravan at the hands of Lord Rama. It is carried out jubilantly across the length and breadth of India. Devotees of Ravana might find this flagrant abuse of the cherished symbol of their faith offensive. So, does that make the organization of a Ravan Dahan programme a blasphemous act?

The answer to this question remains unclear because of the differing views of courts regarding the matter.

Implementation of the law is also a point of debate, where a case is made that it is selectively implemented at the peril of people belonging to the minority community and conveniently not implemented as against people who are from a dominant community. For instance, the Tiger of Maharashtra Bal Thackrey was never penalised for publishing inflammatory editorials in Saamana (a newspaper which was launched by him on 23 January 1988).

The anti-blasphemy law was enforced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1927. Think about a scenario where this section was in force during the early1800s. Raja Rammohan Roy who played a pivotal role in the banning of the Sati practice could have been penalised on a charge under this section. This in turn might have adversely affected the movement to abolish the social evil of Sati.

The restrictions that this section imposes stops the scope of any reform in Religion because even a voice of mild criticism can be penalised. There are different standards set by the Supreme Court and the High Courts pertaining to what should be considered as blasphemy. This variation in the definition is behind the apparent vagueness in the law which makes it susceptible to misuse.

Press Freedom In India

The Constitution explicitly guarantees the fundamental right to Freedom of Speech and Expression through Article 19. Article 19 guarantees many more freedoms like Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Association etcetera. Press Freedom is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras[31] Patanjali Sastri, C.J. observed as follows:
Freedom of Speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible.[32]

The Freedom of Press is included in the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Freedom of Press means freedom from interference from authority which might have the effect of interference with the content and circulation of newspapers. The freedom of Press isn't confined to newspapers and periodicals, but includes also pamphlets, leaflets, circulars, and each kind of publication which affords a vehicle of data and opinion.

A press neither directed or influenced by the legislature nor subjected to censorship is a bulwark of a healthy Democracy. The Press or Media has assumed the role of an educator, apprising the citizens with formal and informal information. When called upon to make a political decision the citizens should be thoroughly aware of the facts of the matter and the opinions of others about it to make a pragmatic decision. The Press also acts as a medium of dialogue for proponents of different opinions and as a watchdog of the people against the powers that be. It stands as a permanent means of communication and control between the people and their elected representatives in Parliament and Government[33].
The imposition of censorship before the publication of a Media piece unless justified under clause (2) of Article 19 is violative of the Freedom of Speech and Expression.

In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi[34] the Supreme Court observed:
There can be little doubt that the imposition of pre-censorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press which is an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression declared by Article 19(1)(a)[35].

There are a lot of questions being raised about the independence of the Indian Media recently. There has been a spike in instances where journalists- have been sacked (owing to their critical views of the government), face arrests for reporting, charged with sedition and physically assaulted. This trend of limiting Journalistic Freedom is evidenced in various reports relating to Media Freedom. India ranks 142nd among the 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index of 2020 compiled by Reporters Without Frontiers.[36] Ranking of India deteriorated as against 2019 when the rank was 140th out of 180 countries.

Unambiguous restrictions in the liberty of Press are always remedied by the courts but the subtle moves to influence Media generally go unchecked. Governments are never comfortable with the scrutiny of their records and performance by the Media. More often than not they try to control the Media narrative revolving around them.

They do this by

• pressurizing Media owners to fire dissenting Journalists
• pressurizing the advertisers to stop their advertisements to feature on particular Media outlets
• filing false cases against dissenting Media outlets to discredit their credibility.

The Criminal Defamation Law specified under section 499 of the IPC is also liberally used to limit the freedom that the media enjoys.

Defamation in India is both a Criminal and a Civil Wrong. In a case of Civil Defamation, a compensation is awarded to the aggrieved party where as in a case of Criminal Defamation the offender is rendered a penal punishment. A joint consultation paper published by the Law Commission of India in September 2014 says that:
Respondents overwhelmingly expressed dissatisfaction with the present state of defamation law[37].

The conclusion drawn by the respondents was premised upon the fact that the Criminal Defamation Law in India violates the international norms of defamation law and that the penalty (of 2 years) that it imposes on the defaulters is disproportionate.

Defamation being a Civil Wrong already provides for an effective remedy to curb its use, making it a Criminal Offence unreasonably restricts the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression. In India the criminal trials can be harassing because it could take 10 years for an acquittal. Such long trials intimidate people and entities which in turn creates a chilling effect on Freedom of Speech and Expression. Media Houses are levelled with Criminal as well as Civil Defamation charges and the long legal battles squeeze their resources. This adversely effects the small Media Corporations with not a lot of resources.

The amendments brought in the RTI Act of 2005 in 2019 also pose a challenge to the press freedom in India. They empower the central government to tweak the term of office and salaries of CICs, SCICs and the ICs at its own sweet will. These changes that have been brought in by the centre adversely affect the independence of these officials. Since the government is at liberty to decide till what period should a CIC or SCIC or IC serve as well as the salary that they receive it would incentivise these officials to be stooges of the government rather than being the foot soldiers for a citizen’s right to information.

They would be forced to withhold information against the political interests of the powers that be, out of the fear of being penalised in terms of the salary deduction or term of office deduction. The amendment also does not specify a fixed salary or term of office for these officials. Due to the terms of the amendment the position of CIC, SCIC and IC will assume a nominal nature where people holding these positions will act on the whims and fancies of the government of the day rather for the welfare of the citizens.

The press or media depends on authentic information to perform their job of its dissemination. The amendments that have been brought decrease the likelihood of them getting hold of such information. This further adds on to the challenges that the media faces in exercising its right to freedom of speech and expression.

Conclusion
The right to freedom of speech and expression is a right that ensures the vibrance and vitality of a democracy. It creates a balance in the socio-political discourse in a way that all the perspectives on an issue whether it be from the right or the left find equal opportunities to be expressed and debated. It is guaranteed to all Indian citizens by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The research paper highlights the reasonable restrictions (security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, integrity and soverignity of India) imposed on the unfettered enjoyment of Article 19(1)(a). It also discusses the meaning of the term ‘Reasonable Restrictions’ specified in Article 19(2). It concludes, that the term has no definite meaning, it just signifies that the restrictions imposed on the freedoms granted under Article 19(1) should be reasonable and not arbitrary.

The paper identifies three laws that restrict the exercise of Article 19(1)(a); the Sedition law, the Anti-Blasphemy law and the Criminal Defamation law. It finds that the governments constantly misuse- the sedition law at the peril of its opponents due to its vague language and its wide scope, the anti-blasphemy law due to a variation in definition of blasphemy put forward by the Indian courts and the criminal defamation at the expense of the media because of defamation being a criminal as well as a civil wrong. The paper puts forward a solution to put a check on the misuse of the sedition law. It contends that the people accused under the law should be granted a defence of selective prosecution.

The anti-blasphemy law is also discussed under the context of religious norms limiting freedom of speech. The paper finds that- the law is speech restricting and vague in nature, and because of the sensitivities that are involved in the matters of religion and culture, governments over the world have enacted such laws.

The research paper also highlights the recent amendments that have been brought in the RTI Act of 2005 and the impact that it has on press freedom. It concludes that the freedom of the press in India has already been deteriorating and these amendments have aided this fall.

Select Bibliography
Primary Sources

• A.K. Gopalan v The State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
• Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi AIR 1956 SC 129
• Chintanman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118
• Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 751
• Henry Rodrigues v State (1962) 2 Cr LJ 564
• Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India 1985 AIR 515
• Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955
• Khalil Ahamad v State AIR 1960 A11 715
• M.C. v Arunachal Nadar Etc v The State of Madras 1959 AIR 300
• N.B. Khare (Dr) v State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 211
• Ramji Lal Modi v State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 620
• Romesh Thapar v State of Madras 1950 AIR 124
• Shreya Singhal v Union of India 2015 5 S.C.C. 1
• State of Madras v V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196
• Tara Singh Gopi Chand v State 1951 CrimLJ 449
• The Constitution of India 1950

Secondary Sources

• A.G. Noorani, Free Speech and Religion [2009] 44 EPW 17, 19
• Gautam Bhatia, From Sakal Papers to M.F. Hussain and Baragur Ramchandrappa: The Implications for Free Speech [2009] 21 NLSIR 189, 200
• Mohd Asif, Freedom of Speech & expression: Astudy under the backdrop of 200th law commission report [2018] 4 IJL 280, 282
• Sheikh Tajammul-ul-Islam, Is Indian Media Free from State Control? An Appraisal [2019] 2 PP 27, 40
• Shukla V.N., Constitution of India (10th edn, Eastern Bool Company)
• Siddharth Narrain, ’Disaffection’ and the Law: The Chilling Effect of the Sedition Laws in India [2011] 46 EPW 33, 37
• Srinivas Burra, Decriminalising Creative ‘Offence’ [2014] 49 EPW 18, 21
• V. Govindu, Contradictions In Freedom Of Speech And Expression [2011] 72 IJPS 641, 650

End-Notes:

1. Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India 1985 AIR 515
2. Romesh Thapar v State of Madras 1950 AIR 124
3. Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India 1985 AIR 515
4. 1950 AIR 124
5. The Constitution of India 1950, a 19(1)(a
6. Ibid, a 19(2)
7. A. K. Gopalan v The State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
8. State of Madras v V. G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196
9. Chintanman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118
10. N. B. Khare (Dr) v State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 211
11. Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 751
12. M. C. v Arunachala Nadar Etc v The State of Madras 1959 AIR 300
13. The Constitution of India 1950, a 19(2)
14. Mahatma Gandhi, The great trial of 1922 < https://www.mkgandhi.org/speeches/gto1922.htm> accessed on 26 January 2021 page 3
15. Ibid, page 5
16. Ibid, page 5
17. Tara Singh Gopi Chand v The State 1951 CriLJ 449
18. The first amendment act was passed in 1951. It added three more grounds for restricting Article 19(1)(a) public order, friendly relations with foreign states and incitement to an offence. It also added term ‘reasonable’ before restrictions thus making it justiciable.
19. AIR 1962 SC 955
20. Sumeysh Srivastav, Abuse of Sedition Law Deccan Herald (1 March 2019)
21. AIR 1962 SC 955
22. Etymological fallacy is a type of logical fallacy. It occurs when it is believed that the true or proper meaning of something is its oldest or original meaning. Meaning of a thing keeps changing with the passage of time therefore a thing’s contemporary meaning should not be conflated with its original meaning.
23. Outlook Web Bureau, Girl Slapped with Sedition For ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ slogan, sent to 14-Day Judicial Custody Outlook India (21 February 2020)
24. Sukanya Shantha, ‘Sedition’ for School Play on CAA: Student’s Dialogue ‘Insult to PM’; Parent, Official Arrested The Wire 30 January 2020
25. The unlawful selection of accused premised upon grounds prohibited by the Constitution is called selective prosecution. For a deeper inquiry about the subject the following article could be perused- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/defending-liberty-against-political-prosecution/article33629363.ece
26. 2015 5 S.C.C. 1
27. AIR 1957 SC 620
28. AIR 1957 SC 620
29. Khalil Ahamad v State, AIR 1960 A11 715
30. Henry Rodrigues v State, (1962) 2 Cr LJ 564
31. 1950 AIR 124
32. Romesh Thapar v State of Madras 1950 AIR 124
33. Journal of the International Commission of Jurists, Vol. 8, p. 132
34. AIR 1950 SC 129
35. Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129
36. Reporters Without Borders, World Press Freedom Index https://rsf.org/en/ranking accessed on 26 January 2021
37. Law Commission of India, National Consultation on Media Laws, p. 27

Written By: Chinmay Harsh Karn - Alliance School of Law, Alliance University, Bangalore Course Teacher: Prof.- Mrs. Barsa Priyadarsinee Sahoo