“The right to offend is as important as the right to agree.” – Salman Rushdie
“Seventy-five years into our Republic, we cannot be so shaky on our fundamentals that a mere recital of a poem is viewed as criminal.” – Supreme Court of India (2024)
Freedom of Speech in India – An Essential Democratic Guarantee
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently reaffirmed the sanctity of free speech by quashing a criminal case against Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi, who had been accused of promoting enmity through a poem on “suffering injustice with love.” The judgment strengthens the foundational role of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and offers a timely reminder of the value of dissent, satire, and creative expression in a healthy democracy.
Constitutional Framework and Judicial Position
- Article 19(1)(a) guarantees to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression.
- Reasonable restrictions can be imposed under Article 19(2) in the interests of:
- Sovereignty and integrity of India
- Security of the State
- Public order
- Decency and morality
- Contempt of court
- Defamation
- Incitement to an offence
- Friendly relations with foreign states
- In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the SC underscored that only those expressions that create a clear and present danger can be restricted.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- The Court emphasized that stand-up comedy, poetry, theatre, and satire are legitimate forms of public expression that cannot be criminalized merely for being disagreeable.
- Justice Bhuyan stated that “reasonable restrictions must remain reasonable,” and not become tools of oppression.
- Justice Oka said that the State must not victimise individual opinions on behalf of those who feel insecure about dissent or critical perspectives.
The Issue of Overreach and Misuse
- The case was registered under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for “inciting discord” on the basis of caste and religion.
- The judgment warns against criminalising subjective expressions, particularly in a multicultural democracy where plurality of opinions must be respected.
- The Court rejected the argument that a poem referencing non-violence and suffering could amount to hate speech.
Significance in a Polarised Political Context
- In recent years, India has witnessed growing intolerance toward dissent and dissenters.
- Laws like sedition (now defunct in its colonial form) and UAPA have been misused to stifle voices critical of the government.
- The judgment acts as a guardrail against arbitrary and politically motivated criminal charges for speech-based offences.
Way Forward
- Law enforcement must follow objective and stringent criteria before registering cases under speech-related laws.
- Judicial clarity must guide how artistic, satirical, and poetic expressions are understood.
- India must continue to promote a robust public sphere where ideas, even offensive ones, are debated rather than silenced.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces a time-tested truth — freedom of speech is the soul of democracy. In a diverse nation like India, voices of dissent, satire, and critique must not only be tolerated but protected. A society that punishes poems and comedians while tolerating hate speech risks losing its moral compass.
⚠️ Copyright Disclaimer
This content is the intellectual property of its creator and is protected under applicable copyright laws. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, redistribution, or sale of this material in any form is strictly prohibited and may lead to legal action.
The material is intended solely for the personal use of enrolled students or subscribers. If you wish to use or refer to this content for educational or commercial purposes, please seek prior written permission