Deepak Dwivedi
NEW DELHI: FREEDOM of speech in India remains constitutionally secure, yet its practical exercise has become increasingly cautious. Article 19(1) (a) guarantees the right to expression, while Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions. The challenge today lies not in the intent of these provisions, but in ensuring that restrictions are applied with clarity, consistency, and procedural fairness. Protecting free speech, therefore, calls for calibrated reform rather than rhetorical reassurance.
The first area needing attention is due process in speech-related cases. Available data shows that arrests and investigations under public order and security laws significantly exceed convictions. This gap highlights the need for stronger procedural filters. Arrests for expression-related offences should remain exceptional. Introducing pre-arrest judicial scrutiny in sensitive cases – particularly those involving journalists, academics, or political speech – would help ensure enforcement actions remain proportionate and focused.
Secondly, greater precision in laws governing speech would benefit both citizens and enforcement agencies. Broad or loosely defined terms such as ‘offensive’ or threats to ‘public order’ can lead to uneven interpretation. Clearer statutory guidance and consistent application would reduce uncertainty, protect legitimate expression, and assist authorities in distinguishing harmful speech from lawful dissent. Courts have repeatedly emphasised proportionality; translating this principle into operational guidance would strengthen legal certainty. Next, timely judicial review is essential to prevent prolonged uncertainty. Delays in investigation and trial often impose significant personal and professional costs, even when cases do not end in conviction. Fast-track mechanisms for early scrutiny of speechrelated cases could ensure meritless complaints are addressed swiftly, while genuine concerns proceed efficiently. This would reinforce confidence in the justice system and reduce the chilling effect of delay.
Arrests for expressionrelated offences should remain exceptional.
Further, institutional consistency must be reinforced. Public confidence depends on the perception that laws are applied uniformly, irrespective of political or ideological position. Transparent reporting of speech-related cases, internal review mechanisms within law enforcement, and independent oversight where appropriate can help sustain trust in neutrality. Equality before the law is not only a constitutional principle but a practical requirement for democratic legitimacy.
Besides, criminal defamation deserves careful re-examination. While protecting reputation is important, civil remedies already provide adequate recourse. Streamlining defamation law could reduce pressure on courts and limit the scope for prolonged litigation, while preserving the right to redress. Such reform would align India with global democratic practice without weakening accountability. Also, media freedom benefits from structural support rather than informal assurances. Press freedom indicators and industry feedback suggest that predictability and transparency in regulation matter as much as independence. Strengthening regulatory frameworks, ensuring fair access to Government information and advertising, and protecting against arbitrary action would enhance editorial confidence and public trust.
Finally, democratic culture depends on shared restraint. Governments, institutions, media, and citizens play a role in sustaining respectful debate. Criticism and dissent need not be viewed as threats; when addressed through dialogue and evidence, they contribute to better policy and institutional learning. Societies, best equipped to manage misinformation and polarization, rely on strong institutions, swift justice, and clear civil remedies rather than expansive criminalisation. India’s economic and social ambitions similarly depend on an environment where questioning and debate are encouraged. Free speech is sustained not only by constitutional text, but by everyday institutional practice. Ensuring that consequences are lawful, proportionate, timely, and consistent strengthens both liberty and order – and reinforces democratic stability.
