Freedom of speech and expression

In date order. The line above each judgment says what it did to an earlier case; Later says what became of it. Follow this case lights up the judgments it is linked to in this chapter.

1. 1950

   The Cross Roads case

   Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras

   Decided 26 May 1950 · 6 judges · 1950 SCR 594

   Held. Madras had banned the entry and circulation of the journal Cross Roads in the State on grounds of public safety. The Court struck the order down: freedom of speech includes freedom to circulate, and Article 19(2) as it then stood allowed restrictions only for graver dangers such as undermining the security of the State.

   Why it matters. Parliament responded within a year: the First Amendment (1951) widened Article 19(2) to add “public order” and “friendly relations with foreign States”.

   Later Built on in Kedar Nath Singh (1962)

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case

2. 1962

   Built on Romesh Thappar (1950)

   The sedition case

   Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar

   Decided 20 January 1962 · 5 judges · [1962] Supp (2) SCR 769

   Held. The Court upheld section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) but read it down: only words that incite violence, or tend to create public disorder, are punishable. Strong criticism of the government, without that tendency, is not sedition.

   Why it matters. Kedar Nath remained the governing reading of sedition until the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replaced the IPC in 2024.

   Later Built on in Shreya Singhal (2015)

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case

3. 2015

   Built on Kedar Nath Singh (1962)

   The Section 66A case

   Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

   Decided 24 March 2015 · 2 judges · (2015) 5 SCC 1

   Held. The Court struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which punished “grossly offensive” or “menacing” online messages, as vague and overbroad: it caught speech that Article 19(2) does not allow to be restricted. It read down the intermediary safe harbour so that platforms must act only on a court order or government notification.

   Why it matters. It is the leading case on online speech and on the difference between discussion, advocacy and incitement.

   Later Built on in Anuradha Bhasin (2020)

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case

4. 2020

   Built on Shreya Singhal (2015)Applied K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) · Privacy, dignity and identity

   The internet shutdown case

   Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India

   Decided 10 January 2020 · 3 judges

   Held. After restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019, the Court held that freedom of speech and the freedom to carry on a trade through the internet are protected under Article 19. An indefinite suspension of internet services is not permissible; orders must be published, temporary and proportionate, and are open to judicial review.

   Why it matters. It is the leading case on internet shutdowns.

   Read the judgment ↗ (indiankanoon.org)Follow this case