Freedom Of Expression Limits In Criminal Law
Freedom of Expression: Limits under Criminal Law
1. Introduction
Freedom of Expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. It allows citizens to express their views freely through speech, writing, and other forms of communication.
However, this right is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), reasonable restrictions can be imposed by the State in the interest of:
Sovereignty and integrity of India
Security of the State
Friendly relations with foreign states
Public order
Decency or morality
Contempt of court
Defamation
Incitement to an offence
Criminal law provides specific provisions that restrict freedom of speech and expression to protect these interests.
2. Key Provisions in Criminal Law Limiting Freedom of Expression
Section 124A IPC (Sedition)
Section 295A IPC (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings)
Section 153A IPC (Promoting enmity between different groups)
Section 500 IPC (Defamation)
Sections 66A IT Act (now struck down) - related to offensive messages through communication
Obscenity laws (Section 292 IPC)
3. Detailed Case Laws Explaining Limits
Case 1: Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 124)
Facts:
A magazine critical of the State government was banned.
Issue:
Whether freedom of press (expression) can be restricted to prevent public order issues.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down the ban and held that freedom of expression includes the freedom of the press.
Restrictions on free speech must be reasonable and in the interest of public order, not merely to prevent criticism.
Significance:
Established the principle that restrictions on expression must meet the “reasonable restriction” test under Article 19(2).
Case 2: Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962 AIR 955)
Facts:
The petitioner was charged under Section 124A (Sedition) for speeches against the government.
Issue:
Whether Section 124A violates freedom of speech.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld Section 124A but restricted its application only to acts involving incitement to violence or public disorder.
Mere criticism of government or strong words do not amount to sedition.
Significance:
Clarified the narrow scope of sedition and protected legitimate dissent.
Case 3: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, which penalized sending offensive messages through communication service.
Issue:
Whether Section 66A was constitutionally valid.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as vague, overbroad, and violative of Article 19(1)(a).
The Court held that the law failed the test of reasonable restrictions and was used to curb legitimate speech.
Significance:
Landmark decision protecting freedom of expression on the internet.
Affirmed that restrictions must be precise and not arbitrary.
Case 4: Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957 AIR 621)
Facts:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 295A IPC for writing a book alleged to outrage religious feelings.
Issue:
Whether Section 295A violates freedom of speech.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld Section 295A, emphasizing that freedom of expression does not include deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
Significance:
Recognized that harm to religious sentiments is a reasonable ground for restriction.
Case 5: Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950 AIR 129)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the validity of Section 124A (sedition).
Issue:
Whether Section 124A is constitutional.
Judgment:
The court struck down the sedition provision, but this was later overruled by Kedar Nath Singh.
Significance:
Early recognition of tension between sedition laws and freedom of expression.
Case 6: S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989 AIR 1289)
Facts:
A Tamil movie was banned for allegedly hurting public sentiments.
Issue:
Whether banning the movie violated freedom of speech.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech includes the freedom to express unpopular views.
Restrictions should be only if there is imminent danger to public order.
Significance:
Reiterated that freedom of expression cannot be curtailed merely to prevent hurt feelings or offense.
Case 7: Prakash Jha Productions v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 372
Facts:
Challenge to certification of a movie based on its political content.
Issue:
Whether the certification board’s restrictions were reasonable.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that censorship must be based on clear legal standards and cannot stifle political expression.
Significance:
Strengthened protection of political speech and artistic expression.
4. Summary of Principles on Limits to Freedom of Expression
| Restriction Area | Nature of Limit | Case Reference | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sedition (incitement to violence) | Narrowly interpreted | Kedar Nath Singh | Only speech inciting violence punishable |
| Defamation and hurt religious feelings | Allowed with safeguards | Ramji Lal Modi | Malicious acts against religion punishable |
| Public order and decency | Reasonable restrictions | Romesh Thappar, S. Rangarajan | Must show imminent threat |
| Vague or arbitrary restrictions | Not allowed | Shreya Singhal | Laws must be precise and reasonable |
| Political criticism and dissent | Protected | Kedar Nath Singh, Prakash Jha | Legitimate dissent cannot be penalized |
5. Conclusion
Freedom of expression in India enjoys wide protection but subject to reasonable restrictions, especially in criminal law to safeguard public order, morality, and other constitutional interests. Indian courts have consistently held that these restrictions must be narrow, precise, and not arbitrary or excessive. The judiciary acts as a vital guardian ensuring that laws like sedition and obscenity are not misused to stifle dissent and legitimate criticism.
RELATED Blog
0 comments