Article 19 of Indian Constitution: Freedom of Speech and Expression and Six Freedoms

• The word liberty comes from the Latin libertas (from liber, "free"): the state of being free.
• Liberty for humans is not "do whatever you like". A lion in the jungle can do anything; that is licence, not liberty. For people, liberty means having the conditions and opportunities to grow as a person.
• Law and liberty go together. As John Locke put it, where there is no law there is no freedom: without traffic rules, nobody can drive safely.

Positive vs negative liberty

• Negative liberty (freedom from): the State should not interfere when a person can manage on their own. Example: freedom of worship, freedom of speech.
• Positive liberty (freedom to): the State should help people who cannot develop on their own. Example: free schooling under Article 21A, support for weaker sections.
• The terms were made famous by philosopher Isaiah Berlin ("Two Concepts of Liberty", 1958). Article 19 is mostly negative liberty; the Directive Principles add the positive side.

Liberty vs Freedom: a classroom view

• The Preamble promises "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship", and Article 21 protects "personal liberty".
• The Part III heading for Articles 19 to 22 is "Right to Freedom", and Articles 25 to 28 speak of freedom of religion.
• Many teachers explain it so: freedom is about removing chains from the individual; liberty is about the conditions that the person and the State together create. In law, both words are used almost alike, and both come with limits.

• Among the rights to freedom (Articles 19 to 22), Article 19 comes first and is the most used in courts.
• Citizens only: foreigners cannot claim Article 19. A company is not a citizen, but its shareholders can challenge a law that hurts the company's freedom (Bennett Coleman, 1973).
• Originally seven freedoms. The 44th Amendment 1978 omitted 19(1)(f) (property) and Article 31; property is now a constitutional (legal) right under Article 300A, not a fundamental right.
• Co-operatives: the 97th Amendment 2011 added co-operative societies to 19(1)(c) and created Part IXB. In Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah (20 July 2021) the Supreme Court struck down most of Part IXB for State co-operatives because half the States had not ratified it; the right in 19(1)(c) remains.
• Assembly in practice: peaceful protest is protected, but public roads cannot be blocked indefinitely (Amit Sahni, 2020, the Shaheen Bagh case). Police may fix places and times for protests, as at Jantar Mantar (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, 2018).
• Profession in practice: there is no right to carry on a trade that is illegal or harmful, such as trade in liquor, which the State can regulate or ban (Khoday Distilleries, 1995).
• Emergency: when a National Emergency is declared on the ground of war or external aggression, Article 19 is suspended automatically (Article 358).

• Article 19 is a relative right, not an absolute one. But every restriction must pass three tests: it must be made by a law (not a mere order), it must fit one of the listed grounds, and it must be reasonable.
• "Reasonable" means the restriction is not arbitrary or excessive, and the court decides this (State of Madras v. V.G. Row, 1952). Today courts use the proportionality test: is there a legitimate aim, a link to it, no milder option, and a fair balance?
• "Public order" means serious disturbance of public peace, not every small law and order problem (Ram Manohar Lohia, 1960).
• In Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. (2023) a five-judge bench said the grounds in 19(2) are exhaustive: no extra restriction can be added, even on ministers' speech.

• Right to know and right to information: voters have a right to know about the government (State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, 1975); the RTI Act 2005 builds on it. In ADR v. Union of India (15 February 2024) the electoral bonds scheme was struck down because secret political donations violated voters' right to information under 19(1)(a).
• Right to silence: three students who stood respectfully but did not sing the national anthem could not be expelled (Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986).
• Flying the national flag with respect is part of expression (Union of India v. Naveen Jindal, 2004).
• Broadcasting: airwaves are public property and must serve free speech (Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995). Commercial advertisements are also protected speech (Tata Press, 1995).
• Internet: speech and business through the internet are protected; internet shutdowns must be temporary, necessary and reviewed (Anuradha Bhasin, 10 January 2020).
• Dress and identity: expressing one's gender identity through dress and behaviour is protected (NALSA, 2014).

Types of expression

• Verbal: oral (speeches, conferences, seminars, meetings) and written (letters, notices, memos, e-mail, bulletins).
• Non-verbal: intonation (stress on a word changes the meaning), body language, facial expressions and posture.
• Oral communication gives instant feedback but is harder to prove later; written communication is slower but has legal value as a record.
• A conference spreads information; a seminar discusses critical views and ideas; a meeting is held to take decisions; a notice informs everyone; a memo gives a task to a person; a bulletin updates people on one topic step by step.

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 was made to give legal recognition to electronic records and digital signatures, support e-commerce and e-governance, and amend the Indian Evidence Act 1872 to accept digital evidence (that Act is now replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023).
• Section 66A was added later by the IT (Amendment) Act 2008. It punished sending online messages that were "grossly offensive", "menacing" or caused "annoyance" or "inconvenience", with up to 3 years in jail.
• Because these words were vague, police used it to arrest people for ordinary posts. In November 2012 two young women in Palghar, Maharashtra were arrested over a Facebook post and a "like".
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24 March 2015): Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman struck down Section 66A entirely. Reasons: its words were vague and overbroad; it did not fit any ground in Article 19(2); and it had a chilling effect (people stop speaking out of fear).
• The Court drew a key line: discussion and advocacy of even unpopular views are protected; only incitement that is close to causing disorder can be restricted. Section 69A (website blocking, with safeguards) was upheld, and the rest of the IT Act survived.
• Even after 2015, cases under 66A kept being filed. In 2021 and 2022 (PUCL v. Union of India) the Supreme Court ordered that no one may be prosecuted under 66A and pending cases must be dropped.

• The Constitution has no separate clause for the press. The press gets its freedom from the same Article 19(1)(a) as every citizen, and is bound by the same 19(2) limits.
• Courts have read press freedom into 19(1)(a) again and again: Romesh Thappar (1950, ban on a journal's entry struck down), Sakal Papers (1962, price-page control struck down) and Bennett Coleman (1973, newsprint quota struck down).
• Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (decided December 1984, reported 1985): a tax on newsprint that burdens newspapers excessively can be challenged under 19(1)(a), because the press is essential to democracy.
• Why the press matters: it is called the fourth pillar of democracy after the legislature, executive and judiciary; it spreads awareness, checks the work of governments, and brings the problems of weaker sections to bodies like human rights and women's commissions.
• Limits and concerns: commercial pressure, "media trials" that declare someone guilty before the court does, and sensational or paid news. The media's job is to report facts, not to deliver verdicts.
• Should media be controlled? Reasonable limits under 19(2) apply, but full control of the media is not acceptable in any democracy. Self-regulation (Press Council of India, News Broadcasting Standards Authority) and courts are the balance.

• No definition: the Constitution does not define hate speech. Broadly, it means speech that targets a group by religion, caste, language or similar identity in a way that can lead to hostility or violence.
• Not protected: such speech can be restricted under 19(2) on grounds like public order and incitement to an offence. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 the main provisions are Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 197, 299 and 353 (earlier IPC 153A, 153B, 295A and 505).
• Law Commission 267th Report (March 2017): made after the Supreme Court's request in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan (2014). It recommended two new offences, Section 153C (incitement to hatred) and Section 505A (causing fear, alarm or provocation of violence).
• Why films are treated differently: a film reaches huge audiences and moves emotions strongly, so pre-certification by the CBFC under the Cinematograph Act 1952 was upheld in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970). But a film cannot be stopped merely because some people may protest (S. Rangarajan, 1989).
• OTT platforms: there is no censor board, but the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 require age ratings (U, U/A 7+, 13+, 16+, A), content descriptors and a three-tier grievance system (publisher, self-regulatory body, Ministry oversight).
• Balance: the Shreya Singhal line still applies: discussion and criticism are free, only incitement can be punished.

• Why such strong protection? So that elected members can raise the real problems of people without fear of defamation cases.
• Sita Soren v. Union of India (4 March 2024, seven judges): taking a bribe to speak or vote is not protected by Article 105 or 194; this overruled P.V. Narasimha Rao (1998).