Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution delineates specific grounds on which restrictions may be imposed on free speech. These grounds are critical for maintaining the balance between individual liberties and societal interests. The eight grounds are:
These restrictions are exhaustive and cannot be expanded by implication, ensuring clarity in legal interpretations.
One significant ruling related to these restrictions was in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), where the Supreme Court deemed Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 unconstitutional. The court highlighted that terms like “offensive” and “annoying” were excessively vague, establishing that only speech that incites violence or causes public disorder can be restricted under Article 19(2).
In another landmark case, Kaushal Kishor vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that the eight grounds under Article 19(2) are indeed exhaustive. It emphasized that no new grounds could be introduced, and restrictions must strictly adhere to established criteria. Furthermore, it clarified that public officials do not have greater protections regarding speech and must uphold constitutional values.
Under Article 19(2), a restriction is considered reasonable if it is not excessive, arbitrary, or disproportionate. The restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a public interest, such as maintaining decency or preventing riots. Vague or overly broad restrictions do not meet this standard.
Speech is punishable under Indian law when it directly incites violence, threatens sovereignty, or undermines public order. For instance, inciting armed rebellion or communal hatred constitutes punishable acts.
According to the ruling in Shreya Singhal, even speech that is offensive, unpopular, or disturbing falls under the protection of Article 19(1)(a). Such speech cannot be criminalized unless it meets the stringent threshold of incitement under Article 19(2).
While criticism of religious beliefs is generally protected, restrictions may apply if such criticism incites violence or public disorder. For example, scholarly critiques are permissible, whereas inciting violence against religious institutions is not.
Similarly, criticism of government policies or leaders is protected under democratic accountability. Peaceful dissent, satire, or protest cannot be restricted unless they incite violence or constitute defamation.
The Court utilizes the proportionality test to assess whether a restriction is valid. It evaluates if the restriction serves a legitimate aim, employs the least restrictive means, and balances public interest against individual rights. Furthermore, restrictions must be specific and clearly fall within the eight grounds outlined in Article 19(2).
As clarified in Kaushal Kishor, Parliament or State Legislatures cannot introduce new grounds for restricting speech. Any attempts to impose new restrictions, such as vague claims of “national interest” or “public sensitivity,” would be deemed unconstitutional.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
