From Articles 19 to Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, the citizens of India have been given various rights related to freedom. The aim of these rights is to promote the objective of liberty given in the Preamble, and to remove inequalities amongst the individuals and to entitle all to a dignified life. 

Protection of Freedom of Speech, Movement and Association

Under this article six fundamental rights related to freedom are guaranteed to all the citizens of India. These are:

• Evolution: Originally, Article 19 contained seven rights. But, the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property Article 19 (f) was deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. 
• Protection against state action: These six rights are protected against only state action and not against actions of private individuals. However, the five-judges bench of the SC in January 2023 held that the fundamental rights under article 19 are enforceable even against persons other than the state and its institutions. This judgement paves the way for filing writ petitions against the private individuals or entities for their actions which are violative of article 19.
• Applicability: These rights are available only to the citizens and to shareholders of a company who are citizens of India but not to foreigners or legal persons like companies or corporations, etc. 
• It can be said that the Article 19 has two parts: 

1. Rights for citizen and
2. Powers to the state for reasonable restrictions.

• Reasonable restrictions: Article 19 does not guarantee absolute freedom to the citizens. The state can impose ‘reasonable’ restrictions on the enjoyment of these six rights only on the grounds mentioned in Article 19 itself and not on any other grounds.

Freedom of Speech and Expression

• Implication of freedom: It implies that every individual is entitled to freely communicate their views, opinions, beliefs, and convictions through speech, writing, printing, visual representation, or any other means. It should be noted that the word ‘expression’ used in Article 19 is quite elaborate and all the mediums for expressing ideas come under expression.

• Court rulings: The Supreme Court has further elaborated this article through its various judgements and provided a list of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a), which can be divided into three types:

• Right to express their own ideas and thoughts:

• Right to propagate one’s views as well as views of others.

• Freedom of the press 
• Freedom to commercial advertisements.
• Right to telecast, that is, the government has no monopoly on electronic media.
• Right against bandh called by a political party or organisation.
• Freedom of silence.
• Right against imposition of pre-censorship on a newspaper.

1. Right to information: Right to Know about government activities. Example: Right To Information Act, 2005 is based on the foundation of the right to freedom to receive information. 
2. Right to keep any communication secret: Right against tapping of telephonic conversation.

Reasonable Restrictions on Freedom of Speech

However, as per Article 19 (2), the State can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression on the grounds of: 

1. Sovereignty and integrity: Any speech or expression which appears to be a threat to sovereignty and integrity of India can be restricted under article 19(2). This ground was added by the Constitution (16th Amendment) Act, 1963 which aimed to impose restrictions on individuals or groups that were instigating secessionist movements in the country.
2. Security of the State: Security of the nation is of utmost importance and imposing reasonable restrictions on activities of fringe elements risking the security of the nation using speeches or any other forms of expression is necessary.
3. Friendly relations with foreign States: Reasonable restrictions are imposed on this ground to curb malicious actions, to prevent jeopardising the reputation of the country and to maintain positive relations with other countries in a globalised world.
4. Public order, decency, or morality: It was added by the 1st Amendment Act, 1951, to prohibit marketing or distribution or advertisement of salacious words or pictures in public places which could lead to social unrest or cause discomfort to a particular community or society at large.
5. Contempt of court: The freedom of speech and expression cannot be exercised to denigrate the authority of courts. To maintain stature and preserve public trust in the judiciary, reasonable restrictions on this ground can be imposed.
6. Defamation or incitement to an offence: It was added by the 1st amendment Act, 1951. Freedom of speech does not give the right to an individual or a group of persons to provoke or instigate someone to commit an offence or encourage communal violence or disturbance. In order to maintain harmony in the society, reasonable restrictions on this ground can be imposed.

Misuse of Freedom of Speech Restrictions

Thus, the right to freedom of speech and expression is a qualified right. Article 19 (2) provides for restrictions to this freedom. However, the list of restrictions are so broad and open-ended that the state can use them to restrain speech of citizens. Various movies showing the social issues faced in India were banned by the government for example; the movie Water (2005) which showed the plight of the widows in Varanasi’ was banned. Similar fate was faced by BBC’s documentary India’s daughter (2015). The Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994) ruled against such banning of movies.

Supreme court Judgments

• Romesh Thappar vs the State of Madras (1950): In this case, the Supreme Court stated that “the foundation of all democratic processes lies in the freedom of speech and the press.” The Court concluded that the right to distribute information is just as important as the right to publish it. 
• Bennett Coleman vs Union of India (1972): In this case, the Supreme court ruled that the freedom of the press extends the public’s right to free speech and expression. It concluded that “the freedom of the press contains both qualitative and quantitative aspects, encompassing both circulation and content.” 
• Bijoel Emmanuel vs State of Madras (1986): The Supreme Court recognized that the right to express oneself includes the right to remain silent. In this instance, the Court upheld the rights of three children expelled from school for refusing to sing the National Anthem, affirming that no individual can be forced to sing the National Anthem if they hold genuine conscientious objections rooted in their religious beliefs. Thus, the right to speak and express also encompasses the right not to express and to maintain silence. 
• Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015): This case is regarded as a pivotal moment for online free speech in India. The Supreme Court’s two-judge bench annulled Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which imposed restrictions on online speech, deeming it unconstitutional for infringing on the freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the Court ruled that this section could not be justified as a ‘reasonable restriction’ under Article 19(2), marking a significant advancement in safeguarding online speech against arbitrary limitations. 
• Indian Express vs Union of India: In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the freedom of print media falls under the protection of freedom of speech and expression.
• Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. V. Lokvidayan Sanghatana: In this case it was held that the right of citizens to exhibit films is now protected under Article 19(1)(a). 
• Anuradha Bhasin v/s Union of India: This case involved the five-month internet blackout that occurred in Jammu and Kashmir. The court concluded that the freedom of speech and expression via the Internet is a crucial element of Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court determined that the right to express oneself and the freedom to engage in any profession, or to conduct any trade or business online, falls under the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. It is significant to highlight that the Supreme Court did not explicitly state that the right to access the Internet is a fundamental right; instead, it affirmed that utilizing the Internet for speech and expression, as well as for conducting trade or business, is protected under Article 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (g). Furthermore, the court indicated that restrictions on internet access would only be permissible under certain conditions. This implies that the government can impose reasonable limitations, but given that internet shutdowns infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens, the court mandated the government to adhere to the test of Proportionality to ensure that no violations of natural justice occur.