Should Restrictions On Free Speech Be Reviewed?

There is perhaps ground to create a new jurisprudence of cumulative incitement

- Abhinav Chandrachud Mihira Sood

Political discourse in India today seems to invite the full gamut of safeguards and restrictions on free speech that the Constitution prescribes. Quite often, these are misused, and deciding on a case-by-case basis is problematic.

Jayant Sriram speaks to Abhinav Chandrachud and Mihira Sood on whether the laws governing freedom of speech and expression in India need to be opened up. Edited excerpts:

Recently, there have been many instances that have stretched the envelope of what we define as freedom of expression. On the one hand, we have FIRs being filed against students for chanting ‘azadi’. On the other, we have political leaders giving hate speeches. Freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution is not an absolute right; it comes with safeguards outlined under Article 19 (2). So, Abhinav, should these safeguards come under review?

Abhinav Chandrachud: The Constitution was at its heart also a historical document. The historical context for the enactment of the Constitution was the Partition of the country, and the large-scale communal rioting that took place as a consequence. So, it was in that context that the Constitution was being debated, that the First Amendment to the Constitution was enacted. Interestingly, the First Amendment to the American Constitution is the amendment that creates the right to freedom of speech in the U.S., whereas the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution introduced various additional restrictions to the right to free speech, while also making those restrictions subject to the test of reasonableness.