THE CONTEXT: India’s tryst with liberal democracy rests on Article 19(1)(a) yet is continually stress-tested by selective arrests, colonial-era statutes and digital-age anxieties. Recent controversies around remarks on Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and the differential police response illustrate how FoE is often filtered through political majorities rather than constitutional morality.
WHY REVISIT FoE NOW?
-
- India’s World Press Freedom Index rank has slipped to 159/180 in 2025, the worst among all G-20 democracies
- The new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) drops the colonial word “sedition” but re-introduces a broader offence (“acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity”).
- The 22nd Law Commission (Report 279/2023) recommends retaining sedition with enhanced jail terms, citing security imperatives.
- Rapid executive actions—PIB’s Fact-Check Unit (FCU) notification followed by a Supreme Court stay on its legality—illustrate the contest over who decides the “truth.”
CONSTITUTIONAL & THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
| Provisions and case laws | Key Doctrine established | Take-away |
|---|---|---|
| Article 19(1)(a) & 19(2) | “Reasonable restrictions” – eight grounds | Know the proportionality and least-intrusive tests. |
| Kedar Nath Singh (1962) | Upheld sedition but narrowed it to “incitement to violence.” | Still, the touchstone for any future BNS prosecution. |
| Shreya Singhal v. UoI (2015) | Struck down the IT Act with section 66A as vague | Established the chilling-effect doctrine. |
| Anuradha Bhasin (2020) | Internet shutdowns are subject to judicial review | Introduced the test of necessity & proportionality for digital gag orders. |
INDIA’S FoE ECOSYSTEM: CURRENT EMPIRICAL PICTURE
-
- Crime Data: Sedition FIRs fell to 20 in 2022, but Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cases rose by 23 %; 5,610 UAPA cases are under investigation.
- Journalist Safety: UNESCO’s 2024 report flags an 86 % impunity rate for attacks on Indian journalists.
- Executive Takedowns: During “Operation Sindoor”, GoI ordered blocking ≈8,000 social-media accounts; SC-granted bail to an academic underscores selective enforcement.
THE THREE PERSISTENT MYTHS (AND GROUND REALITY)
| Myth | Reality Check | Illustrative Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| State as neutral guarantor | States across party lines deploy FoE restrictions opportunistically. | 1951 First Amendment, frequent imposition of Sec 144, and FCU controversy. |
| Adequate legal safeguards | Arrest-first, trial-later culture; bail as “exception”. | NCRB shows 241 sedition cases still pending; few convictions. |
| All speech equally protected | SC reiterates that hate speech forfeits protection. | May 2025 ruling. |
COMPARATIVE GLOBAL INSIGHTS
| Jurisdiction | Key Instrument | Learning for India |
|---|---|---|
| EU | Digital Services Act 2024 | Mandatory transparency reports; appeals against takedowns. |
| Germany | NetzDG | Heavy fines for platforms but independent administrative courts for review. |
| USA | 1st Amendment + SC rulings in Moody & NetChoice 2024 | Protects platform editorial discretion; jaw-boning scrutiny. |
GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES & EVOLVING POLICY TOOLKIT
1. Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 – embeds “right to correction”, enabling counterspeech.
2. Draft Digital India Act 2025 – proposes graduated penalties, algorithmic audits (consultations ongoing).
3. BNS/BNSS/BSA trio 2023 – re-codifies offences, introduces mandatory audio-video recording of police searches—vital for safeguarding expressive offences
THE CHALLENGES:
1. Conceptual Ambiguity – Blurring the Lakshman Rekha
-
- Over-broad statutory phrases such as “public order”, “decency”, “morality” give the executive an elastic mandate. The NCRB’s latest Crime in India report shows a 31 % jump in cases under Indian Penal Code (IPC) §153-A (promoting enmity) in 2022 even though convictions remain below 5 %.
- Absence of a statutory hate-speech definition despite the 267th Law Commission Report (2017) and the 279th Report of the 22nd Law Commission (2023) that asked Parliament to insert new sections 505-A & 505-B but stopped short of drafting a precise test.
- Parallel ambiguity over sedition: the Supreme Court has kept IPC section 124-A in abeyance, yet the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 revives it through Clause 150 (“Acts endangering sovereignty”)—exact thresholds remain undefined.
2. Institutional Deficit – Patchy & Fragmented Oversight
-
- Regulatory Overlap: Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Ministry of Electronics & IT, Press Council of India (PCI), News Broadcasters & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) and, now, the proposed Broadcasting Service Regulation Bill, 2024— none have omnibus jurisdiction. NBDSA’s recent extension to digital portals still limits it to self-regulation without contempt powers.
- Executive Fact-Checking without checks: Government’s Fact-Check Unit under the IT Rules, 2023 was stayed by the Supreme Court for creating an ex-ante prior-restraint regime; Centre’s ongoing appeal signals continued turf conflict.
- Press Council’s mandate is print-only; no statutory body audits algorithmic amplification on social platforms—contrast this with the European Union’s Digital Services Act that mandates independent risk audits.
3. Selective & Disproportionate Enforcement
-
- Arrest-first, bail-later ethos: 95 sedition FIRs were filed between 2019-2022, but zero convictions; meanwhile, procedural detention itself acts as punishment—Law Commission 279 flags this yet urges harsher penalties.
- Policing Bias: Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) syllabi for constables and sub-inspectors contain no FoE jurisprudence module. This knowledge vacuum fosters misuse of IPC section 153-A/505(2).
4. Digital Divide in Safeguards
-
- Rural vulnerability: IAMAI-Kantar Internet in India 2024 reports digital penetration at 73 % urban vs 38 % rural; only 25 % of rural users exhibit basic “critical digital literacy”.
- Language gap: Over 80 % of fact-check outputs are in English or Hindi; verified misinformation on regional platforms often goes unaddressed.
5. Capacity & Culture Constraints
-
- Forensic backlog: Only 36 state cyber-forensic labs are fully functional, and the pendency for a mobile-data extraction certificate averages 14 months, hampering timely hate-speech trials.
- Judicial overload: Over 47,000 expressive-offence cases (sedition, §153-A, §505) await first hearings; high courts dispose of such matters in a median 27 months, causing a prolonged “chilling effect”.
- Media-house economics: Declining ad revenues push television channels towards “rage-bait” formats; a TRP-driven feedback loop that privileges sensationalism over verification.
6. Democratic & Normative Fallout
-
- Chilling of ‘public reason’ (Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s phrase): citizens self-censor, narrowing the deliberative space that undergirds constitutional democracy.
- Coercive ‘information vacuums’: Wholesale takedowns without transparent disclosure (Sec 69-A IT Act orders are secret) feed conspiracy theories, reducing factual consensus during crises.
THE WAY FORWARD:
1. Enact a Precision-Drafted Freedom of Expression and Responsibility Act
-
- Codified hate-speech test: Parliament should embed the Law Commission’s 267th Report twin prongs— (1) clear and specific intent and (2) reasonable likelihood of imminent violence—directly into statute, thereby replacing the present patchwork of §§ 153-A/505 IPC (Indian Penal Code).
- Retain democratic dissent, excise vagueness: The Act must narrow the proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 clause on “acts endangering sovereignty” by importing Kedar Nath Singh’s “incitement to violence” threshold; this also satisfies the Supreme Court’s 2022 interim suspension of sedition prosecutions.
- Built-in proportionality clause: Any restriction must pass a statutory “least-restrictive means” test, echoing Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
2. Introduce Time-Bound, Transparent Executive Restraints
-
- Sunset trigger: Every blocking, internet shutdown, or media gag order issued under the Information Technology Act 2000 Section 69-A or the Telegraph Act 1885 Rule 2 should lapse automatically within 48 hours unless confirmed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class.
- Public Takedown Dashboard modelled on Article 42 of the European Union Digital Services Act; order metadata (legal ground, URL count, reviewing judge) published in real time.
- Fast-track appeal: A single-judge bench of the nearest High Court must dispose of challenges within seven days; experience from the Kerala High Court’s Faheem Rasheed shutdown case shows the feasibility of expedited review.
3. Establish an Independent Media and Digital Communications Authority (I.M.D.C.A.)
-
- Merger of Press Council of India and self-regulatory bodies into a convergent, statute-backed authority with jurisdiction over print, broadcast, over-the-top streaming, and social media.
- Suo-motu powers + contempt teeth: Mirroring the United Kingdom’s Ofcom, I.M.D.C.A. can issue binding directives, levy graded monetary penalties (linked to turnover), and order carriage corrections.
- Diversity & safeguarding mandate: One-third membership reserved for journalists’ unions and digital-native start-ups, ensuring editorial independence; annual State of Media Freedom report laid before Parliament.
4. Create District-Level Freedom of Expression (FoE) Cells with Judicial Oversight
-
- Specialised triad: A designated Deputy Superintendent of Police, an Assistant Public Prosecutor and a certified digital forensic officer must scrutinise every expressive-offence First Information Report before filing a charge-sheet.
- Capacity building: Bureau of Police Research and Development syllabi should add a compulsory 40-hour module on Article 19 jurisprudence, bridging the current knowledge void.
- Quarterly audits: High Court committees publish pendency and outcome statistics; the National Crime Records Bureau must disaggregate data on hate-speech prosecutions versus convictions.
5. Launch an Algorithmic Accountability Sandbox under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
-
- Regulatory test bed: Large online platforms (over five million Indian users) must file annual Algorithmic Impact Reports covering ranking, recommender, and monetisation systems.
- Tripartite governance: Indian Institutes of Technology, accredited civil-society groups and start-ups co-design bias audits, with findings published as white papers.
- Penalty trigger: Repeated systemic amplification of content that courts classify as hate speech attracts graded fines up to 4 percent of India-derived revenue, mirroring European Union Digital Services Act risk-assessment ceilings.
6. Roll Out the National Media and Information Literacy Mission
-
- Curricular infusion: National Council of Educational Research and Training textbooks to integrate critical-thinking and verification exercises from Class VI onward, supplemented by vernacular massive open online courses hosted on DIKSHA.
- Community outreach: Community Radio “Fact Clinics” to take media-literacy toolkits to rural clusters, addressing the 35-percentage-point urban-rural digital divide highlighted by the IAMAI-Kantar Internet in India 2024 survey.
- Public-private labs: State universities partner with newsrooms to run misinformation “war-games,” incubating local-language fact-check start-ups—leveraging UNESCO’s 2024 call for grassroots resilience (86 percent journalist-impunity rate in India underscored urgency).
THE CONCLUSION:
Free speech is not a “concession” but the oxygen of constitutional democracy. India’s challenge is to move from selective criminalisation to rule-bound regulation, ensuring that the might of the State is matched by equally powerful safeguards. A calibrated, transparent, tech-aware framework—rooted in constitutional morality—alone can reconcile liberty with legitimate security needs.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. What do you understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss. 2014
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Selective invocation of hate-speech provisions has produced a ‘low-trust information order’ in India. Evaluate the adequacy of existing legal and institutional mechanisms to safeguard freedom of speech and expression while combating disinformation.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word
