Author: Dimple Chauhan
Institution: Amity University
INTRODUCTION
As India is a democratic country, it believes in providing equal rights to all individuals, regardless of their background or identity. In line with this principle, freedom of speech is a fundamental right granted to all citizens of India under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.This clause gives people the freedom to openly express their ideas, opinions, and beliefs without fear or outside coercion. One can express oneself freely through speech, writing, printing, images, or symbols. However Freedom of Speech is not absolute; it comes with reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, particularly when the speech threatens the public order, morality, or the unity and integrity of the nation.
FREE SPEECH: A CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY
Free speech is at the core of any democratic country and serves as an essential pillar of a democratic society. It refers to the right of an individual to express oneself without fear or external pressure—through speech, writing, printing, images, or symbols—as long as it does not spread hatred in society or harm the integrity of the country. This freedom enables progressive transformation in society by welcoming new ideas and opinions from individuals, which not only helps in the development of society but also in addressing its current needs. Free speech also helps in uncovering concealed truths and gives individuals a voice that can contribute to changing society for the better.
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH
The Constitution of India does not grant absolute freedom of speech, in order to protect the integrity of the nation and maintain peace and harmony in society. Therefore, Article 19(2) of the Constitution has been incorporated to uphold individual liberty in a manner that aligns with, and does not compromise, the sovereignty, security, or moral fabric of the nation.
Defamation
Defamation refers to a statement made by one person with the intent to harm the reputation of another. To protect an individual’s dignity, defamation is considered a criminal offense under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, thereby placing a restriction on one’s freedom of speech.
Security of the nation
The security of the nation is not limited to protecting its borders; it also involves maintaining internal peace, social stability, and preventing any form of internal disturbances or threats, such as civil unrest or terrorism. Many times, political leaders and individuals misuse the freedom of speech, leading to internal disturbances within society.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS), is a legal framework which aims to prevent internal disturbance in the state.
Section 150 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes an individual with 10 years of imprisonment or a fine for intentionally concealing information of war against the Indian Government or if their actions help in facilitating them in initiating such a war.
Section 113 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, prescribes the death penalty or life imprisonment along with a fine for individuals committing a terrorist act. This includes spreading fear among the public and threatening India’s unity, integrity, or security through the use of bombs, weapons, hazardous substances, or gases to kill people or damage property.
Sovereignty and Integrity of India
India’s sovereignty and integrity refer to its independent authority to make decisions on both domestic and international affairs without any external or internal pressure. This ground for restriction was introduced by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of India in 1963.
Relationship with other states and neighbouring nations
Maintaining relations with foreign countries is essential in today’s globalized world for facilitating international trade. Foreign relations not only strengthen a country but also shape its global image. To preserve diplomatic ties and protect the nation’s reputation, certain restrictions have been placed on freedom of speech.
Contempt of court
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 limits speech that undermines the judiciary’s power or interferes with the administration of justice. However, fair criticism, genuine grievances, and accurate reporting of court proceedings do not constitute contempt. This distinction safeguards the principle of judicial accountability while preserving the sanctity and respect of the legal process.
HATE SPEECH: A THREAT TO SOCIAL HARMONY
Hate speech refers to the act of making statements that attack a person’s dignity or insult individuals. At times, such words can be so hurtful and disturbing that they disrupt the peace and harmony of society. Hate speech does not only involve offensive language, but also includes language that deliberately humiliates or incites hostility among individuals. It fuels discrimination and creates divisions within various communities in society.
CHALLENGES IN THE DIGITAL AGE
The rapid revolution of digitalization across the world has created an urgent need to protect individuals on platforms such as WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube from hate speech and to maintain peace and harmony in society. The Information Technology Act, 2000, along with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, forms the key legal framework that governs and regulates online contents.
The circulation of fake news is so widespread around the world that it not only disturbs national peace but also creates panic, often leading to chaotic situations. False information often influences public opinion and shapes personal beliefs. To effectively combat the spread of misinformation, it is essential for everyone to unite and recognize their ethical responsibility. Public awareness about digital literacy must be promoted, emphasizing that not everything shown online is true. There is often a hidden story behind the content, and creators typically present what they choose to show. Therefore, there is a pressing need for strict regulations and, more importantly, their effective implementation.
Role of Judiciary in shaping freedom of speech in India
The Indian concept of free speech has been significantly shaped by the judiciary. It has interpreted the scope and limits of free speech through various landmark cases.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
This landmark judgment played a significant role in protecting free speech digitally. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the term “free speech” was interpreted, and various reasonable restrictions were considered on digital content to protect national security and the integrity of the nation. In this case, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as it was vague and lacked clarity. This provision violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court, keeping in mind national security and peace in society, emphasized the importance of Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which talks about the imposition of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. It stated that these restrictions should be enforced equally on both offline and digital speech.
Kedarnath Singh V. State of Bihar (1962)
This landmark ruling outlines the extent of sedition laws in India and evaluates the constitutional legitimacy of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the offense of sedition. Kedarnath Singh, a political leader and a member of the Forward Communist Party, was charged under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for making a speech that criticized the ruling Congress government. The issue that arose in this case was whether criticizing a political party amounts to sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, thereby violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but limited its application. . According to the ruling, sedition statutes are only applicable in cases when speech actually threatens public order or incites violence. The Court explained that it is not seditious to criticise the leaders or policies of the government.
Balancing Freedom of Speech and Hate Speech in the Digital Age
CONCLUSION
Freedom of speech is a vital and potent right that enables people to express their thoughts, convictions, and opinions in a democracy like India. Nonetheless, this liberty needs to be utilised responsibly and within the parameters established by the Constitution.While hate speech gravely endangers societal harmony, individual dignity, and national security, free speech fosters debate, innovation, and social progress.
In the digital age, where information spreads quickly and extensively, the distinction between hate speech and free speech becomes even more hazy. In order to preserve this equilibrium, legal frameworks such as the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023 play a vital role.
Citizens must be aware of their rights and obligations in order to preserve peace and uphold democratic values. Promoting digital literacy, ethical consciousness, and civil discourse is essential in addition to legal actions. It is important to protect voices and make sure that freedom does not come at the expense of social harmony, dignity, and peace. This is why it is important to draw a line between hate speech and free speech.
REFERENCES
FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS. HATE SPEECH : WHERE’S THE LINE?
Hate Speech vs. Free Speech: Navigating the Fine Line of Expression Rights
Exploring the Judicial Approach to Free Speech in India
Landmark Cases on Freedom of Speech and Expression in India
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962
About the Author
