Cases On Freedom Of Speech Vs Public Order
Freedom of Speech vs. Public Order: Overview
Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, but it is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed under Article 19(2) in the interests of public order, security of the state, decency, morality, etc.
The courts have developed principles to balance the fundamental right to free speech against the state’s duty to maintain public order. The key question often is: When can speech be restricted to prevent public disorder?
Case 1: Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) AIR 124
Facts:
The government banned the circulation of a journal (Cross Roads) fearing it might disturb public order.
Issue:
Whether the restriction on freedom of speech was justified under public order grounds.
Held:
The Supreme Court struck down the ban, holding that freedom of speech cannot be curtailed merely because it might offend or disturb public opinion. The state must show a direct link between the speech and a threat to public order.
Significance:
This case established the principle that mere possibility or apprehension is not enough to restrict free speech; there must be a clear and imminent danger to public order.
Case 2: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted for inflammatory speech advocating violence.
Issue:
Whether inflammatory speech advocating illegal acts is protected by the First Amendment.
Held:
The Court ruled that speech can only be prohibited if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is likely to incite or produce such action.
Significance:
This “imminent lawless action” test became a benchmark in free speech jurisprudence, emphasizing the need for immediacy and likelihood before restricting speech on public order grounds.
Case 3: S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) AIR 1288
Facts:
A film was banned by the Tamil Nadu government on grounds it might lead to public disorder.
Issue:
Whether the ban was a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2).
Held:
The Supreme Court held that speech can only be restricted when there is a clear and present danger of public disorder, and the restriction must be proportional and necessary.
Significance:
The Court emphasized the test of proportionality and necessity, and the need for the state to establish a real threat to public order, not merely hypothetical.
Case 4: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized offensive online speech.
Issue:
Whether the provision violated the right to freedom of speech.
Held:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, holding it was vague, overbroad, and violated freedom of speech. The Court reiterated that speech can only be restricted if it incites imminent public disorder or violence.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed the high threshold for restrictions and the need to protect free speech in the digital age.
Case 5: Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) AIR 955
Facts:
The petitioner was convicted under the Sedition law (Section 124A IPC) for speeches criticizing the government.
Issue:
Whether criticism of government amounts to sedition or can be restricted as a threat to public order.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that only speech which incites violence or intention to create public disorder can be punished under sedition. Mere criticism or expression of discontent is protected.
Significance:
This case clarified the narrow scope of restrictions on speech relating to public order and established limits on sedition.
Summary of Principles from These Cases:
Direct and Imminent Threat Required: Restrictions on speech require a direct, immediate threat to public order (Romesh Thappar, Brandenburg).
Proportionality and Necessity: Restrictions must be proportionate to the threat and necessary in a democratic society (S. Rangarajan).
Vagueness and Overbreadth Are Invalid: Laws restricting speech must be clear and specific, not vague or too broad (Shreya Singhal).
Right to Criticize Government: Peaceful criticism and dissent are protected speech; only incitement to violence can be restricted (Kedar Nath Singh).
RELATED Blog
comments