THE DARK SIDE OF ARTICLE 19: MEDIA’S ROLE IN MISUSE AND MANIPULATION?
“FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT A LICENCE TO ABUSE, IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY.”
ABSTRACT
Freedom of speech and expression, a fundamental right enshrined in article 19(1)(a) of the constitution, serves as a bedrock of a democratic society. This blog examines the contemporary challenges and infringement upon this right, analyzing the sociopolitical landscape and legal framework that impact free speech. It highlights recent case studies, discusses legislative measures and posits potential solution to uphold this critical democratic principle.
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Constitution's Article 19(1)(a) protects the right to free speech and expression for all citizens. Freedom of speech and expression is arguably the most debatable fundamental right in today’s India. It has become the most sought after defense in the court of law. While this article has been a savior against violation of fundamental rights when twisted, it can also be misused and to the benefit of only some. A bench headed by the chief justice of India SA Bobde, remarked along the same lines when it was said that “freedom of speech is one of the most abused freedoms in the recent times” while hearing a petition filed by the Jamiat ulema-e-hind. Even while this clause establishes the groundwork for democracy and individual freedom, there are many obstacles in the way of its practical implementation. Many types of censorship have surfaced recently, such as cultural censorship, social media control, and official repression, which raise serious concerns about the condition of free speech in India today.
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF ARTICLE 19
The concept of freedom of speech can be traced back to the ancient Greek society. There is Greek word “Parrhesia which means “free speech” or “to speak candidly” went on to become more popular and a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens during the classical period. But even this right wasn’t absolute and exercised only in some settings. On December 15, 1791 the first constitution that was drafted by the Americans adopted the first amendment as part of the bill of rights. It was not defined clearly the first amendment gave the citizens freedom of speech for the very first time.
In India, before independence the British look every possible step so as to curtails freedom of speech in colonial India. To ensure that the voice the people was quelled, the English introduces sedition laws in 1870, therefore penalized everyone who spoke against their authority. After the long drawn freedom struggle, while drafting the constitution the framers were greatly inspired by the American constitution and fundamental rights enshrined in it. Hence the provision off freedom speech and expression was placed in our constitution in the form of Article 19.
The freedom of speech and expression has become more threatened in modern-day India due to a number of legal, social, and political issues. These include excessive governmental censorship, the emergence of speech-restricting legislation masquerading as national security, and other issues pertaining to defamation, hate speech, and sedition. This essay examines recent violations of this fundamental right and evaluates significant case law that has influenced how it is interpreted.
ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
According to Article 19(1)(a),"Everyone shall be entitled to the freedom of expression and speech."
Protection of rights regarding freedom of speech etc.
- All citizens have the right
- To freedom of speech and expression
- To assembly peaceably without arms
- To from associates or unions or corporative societies
- To move freely throughout the territory of India
- To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India
- To acquire hold and dispose of property (omitted)
- To practice any profession or to carry on any occupation or trade or business.
However, each of the clauses was misused by the public or misrepresented by the public servant.
(a) FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION:
Whether for social reasons or for other reasons, everyone wants to communicate their thoughts and opinions. However, at the national level, democracy—a core idea of our nation—is entwined with holding the government responsible so that they are sufficiently transparent in their activities, provided that the justification is sound.
MISUSE
The list is endless and includes anything from propagating fake news to making hate speeches, as well as offensive or anti-state propaganda. Events such as the violence in Manipur, false information about COVID-19, and several others highlight how the media covers these issues and how some users of social media are deceiving the public.
Another significant statement in the ruling of the seminal case of Union of India v. Associate for Democratic Reforms, which covered the freedom to express and receive information as well as the freedom to hold opinions regarding the clause, is that "one-sided information, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information all create an uninformed citizenry." All of the negative effects of false information are summed up in just one sentence.
Furthermore, the court has consistently upheld the constitution and declared that such restrictions are unreasonable and unconstitutional, despite the fact that some governments have also misrepresented the clause on multiple occasions and imposed restrictions in its name (Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras).
(b) TO ASSEMBLE PEACEFULLY WITHOUT ARMS:
Protests also fall under this category. People frequently hold public meetings and debates to raise awareness of issues or to interact with like-minded others for the purpose of asking questions or offering criticism.
MISUSE:
Even though the gathering may have a moral purpose, unplanned protests or gatherings can cause public annoyance and disrupt necessary services. Unorganized protests have resulted in the deaths of innocent persons who were unable to receive the necessary medical care. Furthermore, there would be unthinkable repercussions if any radicalized group had infiltrated the debate or demonstration group. Examples from real life, such as agitations on reservations, protests by farmers, or protests during CAA, are useful.
Furthermore, as demonstrated in Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, public employees may also falsify the provision by failing to grant authorization or premises, therefore it is not necessarily the public's responsibility.
(C) TO FORM ASSOTIATION/ UNION :
People come together to form associations or unions when they share similar interests and goals. These worker unions play a crucial role in expressing workers' views on issues like collective bargaining and working conditions. In multinational corporations and various other businesses, they help settle disputes. Whether they're advocating for something or trying to stop it, these unions are essential.
MISUSE
However, there's a downside. The power within these unions can become concentrated, leading to discrimination and bias. Corruption and mismanagement often plague many unions and associations. Regardless of political ties, they can be resistant to change, which sometimes results in strikes and work stoppages. A notable example is the Maruti Suzuki Manesar incident, where a clash between workers and management tragically resulted in the death of the HR manager.
There are rumours that certain unions and associations might be aiding extremist or terrorist groups in sneaking into the country. To address these issues of misuse and misrepresentation, it's crucial to find a balance. Whether it's the case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa or Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, the focus is consistently on balancing individual interests with government responsibilities and regulations.
(d) TO MOVE FREELY THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY:
At a personal level, it’s all about individual freedom and opportunities for education and career growth. When you look at it from a group perspective, it’s about bringing people together socially. On a national scale, it’s about ensuring that all regions develop evenly.
MISUSE
Urban problems like traffic jams and the resulting immobility can really harm the environment. Sometimes, people use their rights to dodge legal responsibility. Big cities feel the brunt of this, especially when suspects of serious crimes skip town or even leave the country to avoid facing the law. Interestingly, public officials can be just as guilty, like in the case of Kharak Singh v. The State of UP & Ors., where unreasonable monitoring and visits were involved.
(e) TO SETTLE AND RESIDE IN ANY PART OD THE COUNTRY:
The significance of this clause mirrors that of the previous one, highlighting the pursuit of growth for individuals in their personal and professional lives, groups seeking economic opportunities, and the overall wellbeing of a nation.
MISUSE
Take Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, for instance; they illustrate the environmental damage caused by significant social mobility. The recent water crisis in Bangalore and Hyderabad, along with the ongoing pollution issues in Delhi, all exemplify this problem. Sometimes, the government has to step in and limit the activities of certain parties to maintain public order, like in the case of District Collector Chittoor v. Chittoor District Groundnut Traders Association, where the state government imposed restrictions on traders in a specific area to regulate market activities. On the flip side, new rights are introduced as needed, such as the right for pavement dwellers to occupy public lands, as established in the case of Olga Tellis & ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation.
(g) TO PRACTICE ANY PROFESSION AND CARRY ON ANY TRADE :
A country focused on social growth and well-being, a profession aimed at boosting its standards, and an individual seeking economic freedom all want to achieve their ideal way of life.
Misuse
Some factories, under the guise of conducting business, take advantage of their workers by forcing them into dangerous jobs with minimal safety measures. It's not uncommon for people to end up with permanent disabilities. On top of that, we see illegal activities, cyber crimes, and scams making headlines every day. Some individuals even go as far as faking their qualifications to work in fields like medicine or law, which is a serious issue. Trade practices that harm the environment aren't included in this discussion, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar case.
CONTEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION :
Right now, in India’s political, social, and legal scene, there are a bunch of things that are causing a decline in the freedoms promised by Article 19(1)(a). Here are some key areas where we’re seeing these modern-day restrictions:
- CENSORSHIP LAWS AND CONTROL : - The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: These rules have faced backlash for possibly hindering free speech on the internet. They set tough regulations for social media platforms, requiring them to remove content deemed inappropriate by the government, often without a clear process. Detractors claim that this leads to self-censorship and restricts genuine free expression online.
- SEDITION LAWS AND NATIONAL SECURITY :- Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses sedition, making it illegal to express any speech that shows disloyalty to the government. This law has often been used to suppress dissent, leading to many well-known journalists, activists, and students being charged with sedition for voicing their critical opinions about the government. In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court confirmed that sedition laws are constitutional but made it clear that they shouldn't be used to penalize speech unless it actually incites violence. Even with this clarification, sedition is still often used, sparking concerns about its misuse to stifle opposing views.
- DEFAMATION AND CONTEMPT OF COURT :- Defamation laws can sometimes be twisted to silence voices that speak out against public figures and institutions. Under Section 499 of the IPC, defamation is a punishable offense, and it’s often used to shut down valid criticism. Typically, it’s the powerful—like politicians—who leverage these suits to keep dissent at bay. On the other hand, contempt of court laws can limit free speech when it comes to questioning court rulings or the integrity of the judicial system. This can create a chilling effect, making people hesitant to discuss how courts and the legal system operate.
- RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL RESTRICTIONS :- There's been a noticeable increase in religious intolerance lately, and with that, hate speech laws are becoming more common. This has led to a situation where anything that questions traditional religious views or social norms is getting shut down more often. Take Section 295A of the IPC, for instance; it makes it illegal to intentionally insult religious beliefs, which often ends up stifling open discussions about faith, culture, and social topics.
- SECURITY AND PUBLIC ORDER CONCERNS :-The invocation of national security laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) in cases of public protest or dissent is an example of how public order concerns are used to curtail free speech. These laws empower authorities to arrest individuals without charge for extended periods, deterring individuals from exercising their right to express dissent.
REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON ARTICLE 19
The laws and statues of our country are drafted in such a way that each cannot be read and applied in isolation, they have to be studies and in tandem with each other. Therefore any law that curtails the fundamental rights and individual can be held invalid. However there are eight rounds that keep a check on the exercise of freedom of speech which are covered under Article 19(2) they are as follow:
- DEFAMATION : covered under civil as criminal laws it refers to statement or spoken words that harm someone’s reputation.
- CONTEMPT OF COURT :the contempt of court act institutes restriction on freedom of speech in legal proceedings.
- DECENCY AND MORALITY : Indian penal code provides for section 292 to 294 which limit exercise of article 19 in the interest of public at large.
- SECURITY OF STATE :no person is given this freedom in the matter of the security and integrity state
- FRIENDLY REALTIONS WITH STATES: this is to prevent cultivating malicious relations with countries India has or have had good relations
- INCITEMNET TO AN OFFENCE : this provision was added through the First Amendment Act 1950 that prevents from citizens to incite people of committing an offence of a crime.
- SEDITION: sedition refers to those action or activities that lead to disruption in functioning of a country by instigating the public against the government.
- PUBLIC ORDER : along of incitement to an offence this provision was also introduces in the first amendment act 1950. It refers to anything due to speech or action of an individual that perturbed public order.
- NATIONAL EMERGENCY: this article also suspend during a national emergency.
FACETS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH :
India has been independent for a while now, and since the constitution was put in place, different legal bodies have made some key rulings to help define what freedom of speech and expression really means within reasonable limits. Here are some of the most notable ones.
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF PRIVACY
Telephone tapping can't violate anyone's right to privacy unless it falls under article 19(2). Only the home secretary at both the central and state levels can authorize such tapping, and even then, the order has to be reviewed by a higher committee.
FREEDOM OF PRESS
The press is often seen as a key element of political freedom and a functioning democracy. In cases like Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras and Indian Express Newspaper vs. Union of India, the court upheld that press freedom is a crucial part of free speech and expression, stemming from Article 19.
RIGHT TO BROADCAST
With the rise of technology, courts have acknowledged the rights to broadcast and advertise. In the case of Odyssey Communication (P) Ltd vs Lokvidyan Sanghatana, the Supreme Court clarified that individuals have the privilege to showcase films as a channel, provided it doesn't violate any laws. Another important point is the right to advertise, which ensures that the public can access "commercial speech," thereby safeguarding their right to read, listen to, and receive that information.
RIGHT TO CRITICIZE
Democracy relies on checks and balances, which come from open discussions and critiquing policies. This was highlighted in the S. Rangarajan vs P. Jagjivan Ram case. The court pointed out that it's important to express opinions in a way that doesn't harm the reputation of the person being addressed.
RIGHT TO SILENCE
In the important case of Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court ruled that a person has the right to stay silent, and punishing someone for exercising that right would go against their freedom of speech and expression.
MISUSE OF THE ARTICE AND DETERRENT IN THE PATH OF JUSTICE: MEDIA TRAILS
India's Constitution offers a bunch of fundamental rights, and Article 19(1)(a) is all about protecting our freedom of speech and expression. This right is super important in a democratic society because it allows people to share their thoughts, opinions, and ideas without fear. But keep in mind, this right isn't unlimited; there are some restrictions laid out in Article 19(2) that define the boundaries of this freedom.
Media is often seen as the fourth pillar of democracy, alongside the judiciary, executive, and legislature. It plays a crucial role in informing the public about societal issues and shaping people's views. A free press is vital for a healthy democracy. However, in recent years, media has crossed boundaries, encroaching on the judiciary's territory by holding trials in the public eye that run parallel to court proceedings. This has led to a situation where the media acts like a public court, ignoring the principles of "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Media trials often kick off before the courts even get a chance to weigh in, with outlets investigating and presenting cases in a way that sways public opinion about the accused before the actual trial takes place. This can seriously affect the fairness of the trial and the accused's right to a fair process. While the media has been lauded for raising awareness over the last decade, it has also faced significant backlash for its overly invasive coverage, especially regarding high-profile individuals.
In today's world of digital media, keeping the media in check is a pretty tough job. Interestingly, the Indian government hasn't set up any regulations, which is a double-edged sword for the media. This lack of oversight has turned media into a powerful force in mass communication, but it often leads to breaches of basic ethical standards, much to everyone's frustration. When the media operates without restrictions, it can skew public opinion and influence those who are supposed to judge the accused fairly in court. This can seriously affect the outcome of trials. Even if someone is found not guilty, the media's portrayal can leave a lasting negative impression on the public, making it hard for the acquitted individual to shake off the stigma.
Today, the media has a huge impact on high-profile trials, often weighing in on how effective the court is during the proceedings. Numerous studies have highlighted how media coverage can directly or indirectly affect the justice system. In India, media trials have become a pressing issue that needs urgent attention due to their negative impact on society. The media has quickly gained immense power, often challenging the authority of the judiciary, which now seems to be just a passive observer, caught in the crossfire of the media's unchecked influence. With the backing of the Constitution and advancements in technology, the media has started to shape public opinion significantly. This article explores the connection between "trial by media" and the freedoms of speech and expression, including press freedom, while focusing on how these media trials affect the Indian judicial system.
Key Case Laws on Freedom of Speech and Expression:
- In the 1978 case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court made a significant move by broadening the understanding of the right to freedom of speech and expression. They decided that Article 19(1)(a) is a fundamental right that covers all types of communication, which also includes the right to travel and access information. The Court pointed out that any limitations set under Article 19(2) need to be “reasonable,” and the government's actions should align with the principles of natural justice.
- In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which made it illegal to post offensive content online. The Court found that this section was unconstitutional due to its vague and overly broad nature, which resulted in random arrests and stifled free speech. This ruling highlighted the importance of having clear and precise guidelines for speech and upheld the right to express oneself online.
- In the 2018 case of Romila Thapar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of activists being arrested under the UAPA. The Court stressed how vital it is to protect the right to free speech and expression, particularly when it comes to political dissent. They pointed out that being able to criticize and share opinions openly is essential for a healthy democracy.
- The Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India case in 1985 highlighted that censorship laws shouldn't be manipulated for political gain. The Court emphasized that press freedom is essential for democracy and needs to be protected.
- In the case of S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that while freedom of speech and expression is important, it isn't without limits. They pointed out that any restrictions placed on this freedom need to be reasonable and shouldn't interfere with the public's right to access information and ideas.
PRESS FREEDOM AND MEDIA TRIALS
The Supreme Court has pointed out that the media's influence is so extensive that it can seriously damage someone's reputation by making them seem guilty even before a legal decision is made. This is especially true in high-profile cases where the media stirs up public outrage, portraying the accused as guilty regardless of the court's ruling. As a result, the accused often has to endure a lifetime of public judgment. What began as a way to grab the public's attention and boost ratings has gone on for too long and is now threatening the democracy that gives it strength.
The Indian Constitution ensures that everyone has the right to free speech and expression, as stated in Article 19. However, it doesn't mention trial by media or anything related to it. The freedom of the press falls under the umbrella of free speech and expression. Essentially, the concept of free speech is all about sharing ideas, no matter what medium is used. That said, this freedom isn't absolute; the legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on how this right is exercised. The Indian Press Commission pointed out that democracy thrives not just under the watchful eye of lawmakers but also through public opinion, with the press being a key player in voicing that opinion. The freedom of the press isn't prioritized over the rights of individual citizens. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar highlighted this during the Constituent Assembly Debates, stating that the press doesn't have any special rights beyond those granted to citizens. Editors and managers are simply exercising their right to express themselves, so there's no need for special mention of press freedom. The Supreme Court has consistently stressed the significance of a free press in a democracy, affirming in the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras that press freedom is a vital part of free speech and expression.
The media plays a crucial role in serving the public by sharing news that helps people understand their elected government better. Often, the media takes a critical stance towards the government, pointing out flaws in its policies, which is a big reason why the government tries to limit press freedom. It's up to the judiciary to protect this freedom and strike down any laws that infringe upon it, as that goes against the principles laid out in the Constitution. In India, press freedom can only be limited if it’s being misused, making such restrictions justifiable. While press freedom is vital for democracy, there are times when the media might overstep its role and interfere with other democratic functions, which calls for some restrictions. In the case of Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India, the petitioner challenged the "Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956" and the "Daily Newspaper (Price and Control) Order, 1960," arguing that the government imposed unreasonable limits, like capping the number of pages and setting minimum prices for newspapers. The government had asked the petitioners to raise their newspaper prices while keeping the same page count, which hurt circulation. The Supreme Court ruled that making prices unattractive to the point of reducing circulation was not valid. The court emphasized that the right to publish and circulate is a fundamental part of the freedom of speech and expression protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, and can only be limited under the conditions specified in Article 19(2). Even some liberals believe that granting the media unrestricted free speech and expression could lead to negative consequences, even if the specifics are a bit vague. To prevent misuse, certain restrictions need to be established. The limitations outlined in Article 19 (2) are a smart way to monitor the media while supporting a healthy democracy. These restrictions include aspects like the "right to reputation," laws on "contempt of court," and similar rights. When the media criticizes individuals or organizations through libel or slander, they are held accountable. Additionally, the media can't exploit their freedom to infringe on someone's privacy.
PUBLICITY TRIAL OR JUSTICE TRIAL
The media has definitely sparked a bit of a battle between press freedom and the right to a fair trial. When questioned about this, the media argues that a democracy relies on a free press, which stems from the public's right to stay informed about their government’s actions that impact them. However, the media often twists facts to suit their needs, aiming to boost their ratings, which can lead to a distortion of the justice system. This kind of interference can undermine the right to a fair trial for those involved, prejudicing the facts and infringing on citizens' rights. It’s crucial to find a balance between the press's freedom of speech and the citizens' right to a fair trial. Both are essential in a democratic society. If media coverage creates doubt about the judiciary's ability to deliver justice, it could seriously threaten the very foundation of democracy.
While there have been times when media involvement has helped bring justice for both victims and the accused, it raises the question of whether free speech can be pushed to the point of undermining the right to a fair trial. The concept of audi alteram partem is compromised because the media often fails to distinguish between someone who is merely accused and someone who has been convicted. As a result, the media frequently labels the accused as guilty before the court has even made a decision, leading to public outrage that can ruin the accused's life, even if they are later found innocent. The media has essentially taken on the role of a public court, twisting facts, sharing biased views, and putting pressure on the legal system to align with their narratives.
The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democracy and our Constitution, which also encompasses other essential rights like being presumed innocent until proven guilty, having access to legal representation, and the right to a speedy trial. This right is crucial not just for the accused but also for maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring public trust in it. One of the most troubling aspects is how sexual offense cases are handled in the media. Often, they dig into the victim's sexual history and make it public, which can lead to severe social stigma and, in some tragic instances, even drive victims to suicide. Both the accused and the victims end up being treated like mere headlines, putting their reputations on the line.
Recent news articles seem to focus more on what grabs the public's attention rather than what truly matters. With the rise of electronic media, we've seen an uptick in media trials, thanks to the vast broadcasting opportunities and minimal oversight. When the media runs parallel trials, especially on cases still under judicial consideration, it makes it tough for judges to remain neutral and base their decisions solely on the facts. If a judge's ruling goes against the media's narrative, they often get labeled as biased or incompetent. This constant media scrutiny in ongoing cases creates a risky environment. It's clear that the media wields significant power and influence over public opinion, and when that power is misused under the guise of participative journalism, it can subconsciously sway a judge's decision, as the media has already formed a narrative before the court's ruling.
THE HIDDEN IMPACT OF MEDIA TRIALS ON JUDGES
One downside of media trials that often gets pointed out is how they can bias the judge handling the case. In the U.S., there's a common belief that media coverage doesn't sway the opinions of jurors or judges. However, in India, where the jury system has been abolished for quite some time, there's a concern that judges might be subconsciously influenced by the news. This influence can happen because judges often face pressure from the media and the public, who have been swayed by that same media, pushing them to deliver a verdict that aligns with what the publications want.
Lord Denning, a well-known judge from the 20th Century, believed that while others might be swayed, judges should never let media reports or publicity affect their decisions. The House of Lords disagreed with him on this point. Justice Frankfurter argued that anyone fit to be a judge shouldn't be influenced by outside information, whether it's something they see or hear. He emphasized that judges base their rulings solely on the facts and arguments presented in court. Still, he acknowledged that careless media coverage could potentially lead judges astray since they are only human, and administering justice is a tricky task.
News articles aimed at swaying the opinions of judges on a case should definitely face contempt of court charges. The media needs to be kept in check when it comes to these kinds of trials because, even if judges are skilled and fair, they can still be subtly affected by what’s happening around them. The impact of these media trials in shaping biases and prejudices is undeniable. The negative comments shared through broadcasts or publications can seriously threaten the integrity of the judicial system, as they might influence both judges and witnesses involved in the case. In the case of Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court pointed out that "the grievance relating to trial by press would stand on a different footing. Judges do not get influenced by propaganda or adverse publicity." The court also took a stand against investigative journalism that disrupts the judicial process and complicates evidence gathering.
CONCLUSION
Freedom of speech and expression is super important for a democracy to work. It allows people to share their thoughts, have discussions, and question those in power without worrying about being silenced. But right now in India, there are some serious challenges to this freedom, like sedition laws, defamation suits, censorship, and issues related to national security.
The Supreme Court has always recognized how crucial this right is, but there's still a tug-of-war between personal freedoms and the government's need to maintain security and order. Courts have pointed out that any limits on free speech should be fair, and the government has to make sure that these restrictions don’t infringe on the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. With the digital landscape constantly changing and increasing political and social pressures, it looks like the way we interpret Article 19(1)(a) will keep shifting, trying to find a balance between individual rights and the needs of the nation.
A careful judicial approach is essential to protect the integrity of free speech, which is a fundamental part of a healthy democracy.
https://www.jlsrjournal.in/article-19-used-or-misused-by-ayushi-jaryal/