Freedom Of Speech And Expression

Speech is God's gift to mankind. Through speech a human being conveys his thoughts,
sentiments and feeling to others. Freedom of speech and expression is thus a natural right, which
a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a basic right. "Everyone has the right to freedom
of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
to seek and receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers" proclaims the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948). The people of India
declared in the Preamble of the Constitution, which they gave unto themselves their resolve to
secure to all the citizens liberty of thought and expression. This resolve is reflected in Article
19(1) (a) which is one of the Articles found in Part III of the Constitution, which enumerates the
Fundamental Rights.

Man as rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be
controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals. The
guarantee of each of the above right is, therefore, restricted by the Constitution in the larger
interest of the community. The right to freedom of speech and expression is subject to limitations
imposed under Article 19(2).

Public order as a ground of imposing restrictions was added by the Constitution (First
Amendment) Act, 1951. Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and
order. Public order in the present context is synonymous with public peace, safety and
tranquility.

Meaning And Scope

Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution says that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech
and expression. Freedom of Speech and expression means the right to express one's own
convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode.
It thus includes the expression of one's idea through any communicable medium or visible
representation, such as gesture, signs, and the like. This expression connotes also publication and
thus the freedom of press is included in this category. Free propagation of ideas is the necessary
objective and this may be done on the platform or through the press. This propagation of ideas is
secured by freedom of circulation. Liberty of circulation is essential to that freedom as the liberty
of publication. Indeed, without circulation the publication would be of little value. The freedom
of speech and expression includes liberty to propagate not one's views only. It also includes the
right to propagate or publish the views of other people; otherwise this freedom would not include
the freedom of press. 

Freedom of expression has four broad special purposes to serve: 

1) It helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment. 

2) It assists in the discovery of truth. 

3) It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making. 

4) It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance

between stability and social change. 

5) All members of society would be able to form their own beliefs and communicate them freely
to others

In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people's right to know. Freedom of speech
and expression should, therefore, receive generous support from all those who believe in the
participation of people in the administration. It is on account of this special interest which society
has in the freedom of speech and expression that the approach of the Government should be
more cautious while levying taxes on matters of concerning newspaper industry than while
levying taxes on other matters.

Explaining the scope of freedom of speech and expression

Supreme Court has said that the words "freedom of speech
and expression" must be broadly constructed to include the
freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth or in
writing or through audiovisual instrumentalities. It
therefore includes the right to propagate one's views through
the print media or through any other communication
channel e.g. the radio and the television. Every citizen of this
country therefore has the right to air his or their views
through the printing and or the electronic media subject of
course to permissible restrictions imposed under Article
19(2) of the Constitution.
Freedom to air one's view is the lifeline of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle,
suffocate or gag this right would sound a death knell to democracy and would help usher in
autocracy or dictatorship. The modern communication mediums advance public interest by
informing the public of the events and development that have taken place and thereby educating
the voters, a role considered significant for the vivacious functioning of a democracy. Therefore,
in any setup more so in a democratic setup like ours, broadcasting of news and views for popular
consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same must be frowned upon unless it falls
within the mischief of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The various communication channels are great spreaders of news and views and make
considerable impact on the minds of readers and viewers and our known to mould public opinion
on vitals issues of national importance. The freedom of speech and expression includes freedom
of circulation and propagation of ideas and therefore the right extends to the citizen to use the
media to answer the criticism leveled against the views propagated by him. Every free citizen has
undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases. This freedom must, however, be exercised
with circumspection and care must be taken not to trench on the rights of other citizens or to
jeopardise public interest.

New Dimensions Of Freedom Of Speech And Expression

Government has no monopoly on electronic media: The Supreme Court widened the scope and
extent of the right to freedom of speech and expression and held that the government has no
monopoly on electronic media and a citizen has under Art. 19(1)(a) a right to telecast and
broadcast to the viewers/listeners through electronic media television and radio any important
event. The government can impose restrictions on such a right only on grounds specified in
clause (2) of Art. 19 and not on any other ground. A citizen has fundamental right to use the best
means of imparting and receiving communication and as such have an access to telecasting for
the purpose.

 The court held that commercial speech (advertisement) is a part of the freedom of speech and
expression. The court however made it clear that the government could regulate the commercial
advertisements, which are deceptive, unfair, misleading and untruthful. Examined from another
angle the Court said that the public at large has a right to receive the "Commercial Speech". Art.
19(1)(a) of the constitution not only guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, it also
protects the right of an individual to listen, read, and receive the said speech.

Telephone Tapping: Invasion on right to privacy : Telephone tapping violates Art. 19(1)(a)
unless it comes within grounds of restriction under Art. 19(2). Under the guidelines laid down by
the Court, the Home Secretary of the center and state governments can only issue an order for
telephone tapping. The order is subject to review by a higher power review committee and the
period for telephone tapping cannot exceed two months unless approved by the review authority.

Freedom Of Press
The fundamental right of the freedom of press implicit in the right the freedom of speech and
expression, is essential for the political liberty and proper functioning of democracy. The Indian
Press Commission says that "Democracy can thrive not only under the vigilant eye of legislature,
but also under the care and guidance of public opinion and the press is par excellence, the vehicle
through which opinion can become articulate." Unlike the American Constitution, Art. 19(1)(a)
of the Indian Constitution does not expressly mention the liberty of the press but it has been held
that liberty of the press is included in the freedom of speech and expression. The editor of a press
for the manager is merely exercising the right of the expression, and therefore, no special
mention is necessary of the freedom of the press. Freedom of press is the heart of social and
political intercourse. It is the primary duty of the courts to uphold the freedom of press and
invalidate all laws or administrative actions, which interfere with it contrary to the constitutional
mandate.
Right to Information
The right to know, 'receive and impart information has been recognized within the right to
freedom of speech and expression. A citizen has a fundamental right to use the best means of
imparting and receiving information and as such to have an access to telecasting for the purpose.
The right to know has, however, not yet extended to the extent of invalidating Section 5 of the
Official Secrets Act, 1923 which prohibits disclosure of certain official documents. One can
conclude that 'right to information is nothing but one small limb of right of speech and
expression.

Grounds of Restrictions
Clause (2) of Article 19 contains the grounds on which restrictions on the freedom of speech and
expression can be imposed- 

1) Security of State: Under Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom of

speech and expression in the interest of security of State. The term "security of state" refers only
to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g. rebellion, waging war against the State,
insurrection and not ordinary breaches of public order and public safety, e.g. unlawful assembly,
riot, affray. Thus speeches or expression on the part of an individual, which incite to or
encourage the commission of violent crimes, such as, murder are matters, which would
undermine the security of State.

2) Friendly relations with foreign states: This ground was added by the constitution (First
Amendment) Act, 1951. The object behind the provision is to prohibit unrestrained malicious
propaganda against a foreign friendly state, which may jeopardise the maintainance of good
relations between India, and that state. No similar provision is present in any other Constitution
of the world. In India, the Foreign Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides punishment for libel by
Indian citizens against foreign dignitaries. Interest of friendly relations with foreign States,
would not justify the suppression of fair criticism of foreign policy of the Government. 

It is to be noted that member of the commonwealth including Pakistan is not a "foreign state" for
the purposes of this Constitution. The result is that freedom of speech and expression cannot be
restricted on the ground that the matter is adverse to Pakistan.

3) Public Order: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. 'Public
order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which prevails
among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the
Government which they have established."

Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 'Public order' is
synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility. The test for determining whether an act
affects law and order or public order is to see whether the act leads to the disturbances of the
current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or whether it
affects merely an individual being the tranquility of the society undisturbed. 
Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Thus communal
disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object of acausing unrest among workmen are
offences against public order. Public order thus implies absence of violence and an orderly state
of affairs in which citizens can peacefully pursue their normal avocation of life. Public order also
includes public safety. Thus creating internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and
public safety. But mere criticism of government does not necessarily disturb public order. In its
external aspect 'public safety' means protection of the country from foreign aggression. Under
public order the State would be entitled to prevent propaganda for a state of war with India.

The words 'in the interest of public order' includes not only such utterances as are directly
intended to lead to disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder. Thus a law
punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class
of persons is valid because it imposes a restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of
public order since such speech or writing has the tendency to create public disorder even if in
some case those activities may not actually lead to a breach of peace. But there must be
reasonable and proper nexus or relationship between the restrictions and the achievements of
public order.

4) Decency or morality: The words 'morality or decency' are words of wide meaning. Sections
292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the freedom of speech
and expression in the interest of decency or morality. These sections prohibit the sale or
distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is laid down till
now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from time to time and
from place to place.

5) Contempt of Court: Restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed if it

exceeds the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court. According to the Section
2 'Contempt of court' may be either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt.'

6) Defamation: A statement, which injures a man's reputation, amounts to defamation.

Defamation consists in exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law in relating
to defamation is still uncodified in India and subject to certain exceptions.

7) Incitement to an offence: This ground was also added by the constitution (First Amendment)
Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right to incite people to
commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or omission made punishable by law for
the time being in force.

8) Sedition: As understood by English law, sedition embraces all those practices whether by
words, or writing which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the State and lead ignorant
person to subvert the government. It should be noted that the sedition is not mentioned in clause
(2) of Art. 19 as one of the grounds on which restrictions on freedom of speech and expression
may be imposed.

Conclusion
From this article it can be easily concluded that right to freedom of speech and expression is one
of the most important fundamental right. It includes circulating one's views by words or in
writing or through audiovisual instrumentalities, through advertisements and through any other
communication channel. It also comprises of right to information, freedom of press etc. Thus this
fundamental right has a vast scope.

From the above case law analysis it is evident that the Court has always placed a broad
interpretation on the value and content of Article 19(1)(a), making it subjective only to the
restrictions permissible under Article 19(2). Efforts by intolerant authorities to curb or suffocate
this freedom have always been firmly repelled, more so when public authorities have betrayed
autocratic tendencies.

It can also be comprehended that public order holds a lot of significance as a ground of
restriction on this fundamental right. But there should be reasonable and proper nexus or
relationship between the restriction and achievement of public order. The words 'in the interest of
public order' include not only utterances as are directly intended to lead to disorder but also those
that have the tendency to lead to disorder.

In the case of Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (AIR 1950 SC 129), the validity of censorship
previous to the publication of an English Weekly of Delhi, the Organiser was questioned. The
court struck down the Section 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949, which directed the editor
and publisher of a newspaper “to submit for scrutiny, in duplicate, before the publication, till the
further orders , all communal matters all the matters and news and views about Pakistan,
including photographs, and cartoons", on the ground that it was a restriction on the liberty of the
press. Similarly, prohibiting newspaper from publishing its own views or views of
correspondents about a topic has been held to be a serious encroachment on the freedom of
speech and expression.

In India, the press has not been able to exercise its freedom to express the popular views.
In Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India,] the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960,
which fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper could publish at a price was held to
be violative of freedom of press and not a reasonable restriction under the Article 19(2).
Similarly, in Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, the validity of the Newsprint Control
Order, which fixed the maximum number of pages, was struck down by the Court holding it to
be violative of provision of Article 19(1)(a) and not to be reasonable restriction under Article
19(2). The Court struck down the plea of the Government that it would help small newspapers to
grow.