The Limits of Freedom of Speech and Legal Boundaries

As citizens of our democratic country, we all believe in expressing what we call freedom of speech, one of the most fundamental rights protected in the Indian Constitution. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees this right to all citizens, allowing us to express our opinions without fear. However, the big question usually asked is whether the right is absolute and where the line is drawn.

Article 19(2) places reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interests of sovereignty, public order, morality, decency, defamation, and incitement to an offence. Recent Supreme Court cases have brought the issue once again to the forefront. This has led to public interest raising questions about caveats, where free speech ends, and when it crosses into legally impermissible territory.

Constitutionally, let us be aware that riders such as reasonable restrictions can be imposed to prevent the misuse of freedom of speech, ensuring that it does not incite violence, spread misinformation, or harm national security. Many democratic constitutions even allow limitations on speech while maintaining the core principle of free expression.

While the Indian Constitution guarantees free speech, it also mandates that this right must be exercised responsibly. Unlike the United States, where the First Amendment offers near-absolute protection to speech (including flag-burning as a form of protest). India’s constitutional framework acknowledges that unrestricted speech can sometimes threaten public harmony, morality, or national security. Therefore, the courts have frequently arbitrated to balance freedom of expression with societal responsibilities.

In light of recent developments as reported in the media, more so in the Bar and Bench website, the Supreme Court has initiated deliberating on whether additional safeguards are needed to prevent abuse of free speech, especially in the digital age, where online content spreads rapidly and can have far-reaching consequences.

The Ranveer Allahbadia Case: Free Speech vs. Obscenity

One of the most noteworthy recent cases reported in the media that has reignited the debate on free speech is that of YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia (popularly known as BeerBiceps). He approached the Supreme Court seeking relief after multiple criminal cases were filed against him for allegedly obscene remarks made on one of the programmes where he was a guest. This case involves prominent internet personalities. Once the issue was in public, it led to discussions about the freedom of speech and its limits. The discussions in the court further led to whether explicit content should be regulated more strictly. During the recent hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Allahbadia’s remarks were not merely vulgar but perverse. The Solicitor General highlighted that India’s cultural and moral standards differ from those of Western countries. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging these concerns, was cautious about imposing any blanket restrictions. The court stated that while regulation is necessary, it should not amount to outright censorship. Justice Surya Kant as reported in the media observed that free speech carries duties and that speech violating morality cannot be protected. The case illustrates a crucial point: while humour and satire are protected under free speech, there is a fine line between creativity and obscenity. The observations were also made that judiciary must walk this tightrope carefully, ensuring that regulation does not stifle genuine artistic expression while also safeguarding societal norms.

Takedown of Online Posts

The Supreme Court is questioning whether social media posts can be removed without informing users. The Software Freedom Law Centre argues that platforms like X (formerly Twitter) often take down posts at the government’s request without notice, violating fairness principles.

Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih stressed that if a user is identifiable, they should be notified before their post is removed. The case raises concerns about digital censorship and the need for transparency. While the government can curb misinformation, due process is essential to prevent unfair suppression of speech.

The Imran Pratapgarhi Case: Free Speech vs. Sedition

Congress MP Imran Pratapgarhi was charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for posting a video of a poem allegedly harmful to national unity. The Gujarat High Court refused to dismiss the case, stating that public figures must be mindful of their words. However, the Supreme Court questioned the need for the case, noting that the poem promoted non-violence and did not incite hatred. Justice AS Oka emphasised that after 75 years of independence, authorities should better understand free speech. The case highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting political expression while considering legal limits under Article 19(2).

Free Speech vs. National Interest: The Ananda Vikatan Case

The legal fight between Ananda Vikatan and the central government highlights the tension between free speech and national interest. The magazine argues that its cartoon, which criticises the mistreatment of Indian deportees from the U.S., is legitimate satire. Blocking the entire website, it says, is an extreme response that limits press freedom. The government, citing Section 69A of the IT Act, claims the content threatens India’s sovereignty and diplomatic ties. This raises a key question: Where should the line be drawn between criticism and content that harms national interests? As the Madras High Court prepares to rule on March 21, the decision could set an important precedent for balancing security concerns with journalistic and artistic freedom in India.

Balancing Free Speech and Social Responsibility

While free speech is a fundamental right, it comes with responsibilities. The law does not protect speech that spreads hatred, defames individuals, or incites violence. For instance, Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prohibits speech that promotes enmity between different religious or social groups, while Section 295A criminalises deliberate insults to religious beliefs. Defamation laws (Sections 499 and 500 IPC) protect individuals from false statements that harm their reputations. Additionally, the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, regulate online content and require platforms to act against harmful material. The real challenge is ensuring these laws are not misused to suppress dissent. Courts have repeatedly emphasised the need to strike a balance between protecting fundamental rights and addressing genuine legal concerns.

Keeping in view the legal responsibilities, every individual needs to exercise caution while posting online, criticising public figures, or engaging in debates. That means that precautions are much for each individual engaging in public discourse. One needs to keep some guidelines, rather a self-censorship as ignorance of law is no excuse. One needs to be cautious when replaying or using defamatory or unverified statements. Making hearsay allegations against individuals or institutions can lead to legal consequences.

The lesson learned here is: that one needs to stay within the realms of decency and morality. Using obscene or derogatory language, even as humour or criticism, can lead to legal trouble. It is important to be careful when talking about sensitive topics like religion, caste, and national security. Also, be responsible on social media—your posts are public and can be examined under the law.

In the present world, digital platforms have become the primary medium for public discourse, so it is crucial to strike a balance between free speech and responsible expression. While the judiciary is quite supportive of upholding the sanctity of this fundamental freedom, however, it has also recognised the need for reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and morality. Governments, civil society, and digital platforms can work together to promote civic education, emphasising how one’s freedom of speech must respect the rights and dignity of others, fostering a balanced and informed public discourse.

It is important that society, in general, ensure public awareness as we live in a cyber-loop, digital world. Spreading legal literacy amongst people is essential, and campaigns and educational curricula can help. Media guidelines can also play a crucial role in disseminating information about freedom of speech its limits and the responsibility that comes with it. The crux of the issue is that individuals must recognise their duties when exercising their right to speech, ensuring that their words do not cross into legally impermissible territory.

Author is National Editor,

Greater Kashmir