Article 19: Mapping the Free Speech Debate in India
The Freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution of India. However, the Constitution does not guarantee an absolute individual right to freedom of expression. Instead, it envisages reasonable restrictions that may be placed on this right by law.
Many laws that restrict free speech such as the laws punishing sedition, hate speech or defamation, derive their legitimacy from Article 19(2). Inspection of movies, books, paintings, etc, is also possible by way of this clause. Scholars note that censorship in India was, and still is, historically rooted in the discourse of protecting Indian values from outside forces and building and maintaining strong national unity post independence. Scholars conclude that any misuse of the law could be detrimental to arts and ideas.
The freedom to criticise and dissent are part of one’s broader freedom of speech, which is seen as fundamental to the functioning of a democracy. If a state’s citizenry is not free to express themselves, then their other civil and political rights are also under threat.
The freedom of expression, however, is paramount to the working of a democracy and it includes the right to offend. For a little over half a decade, questions of whether “hate speech” can be excused under the right to freedom of speech, have been raised by various quarters of society—their stance often varying from one case to the other.
The freedom of press is also crucial to the functioning of participative democracy. In the absence of a free press, citizens lose their ability to make informed decisions in a free and fair electoral process. In conclusion,
“Intolerance of dissent from the orthodoxy of the day has been the bane of Indian society for centuries. But it is precisely in the ready acceptance of the right to dissent, as distinct from its mere tolerance, that a free society distinguishes itself.”
—A G Noorani, 1999
In this resource kit, we have collated over 200 articles from the EPW archive and built a repository of articles that cover these debates.
Scroll over the redacted text of Article 19 (1) (a) and Article (19) (2) below to explore more.
19 (1) (a)
All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression …
19 (2)
Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
Freedom of Speech and Public Order
Laws maintaining public order seek to restrict and punish the harassment of individuals, hate speech and public nuisance. Any speech or publication considered prejudicial to these interests is subject to censorship. Restrictions on freedom of speech can also be invoked to curb the spread of misinformation and disinformation since these are likely to be inimical to public order.
While there are laws that punish offensive speech that may hurt the religious or cultural sentiments of sections of society, conservative groups have, on occasion, themselves posed a threat to public order in order to create a justification for restricting speech that may be critical of specific cultural or religious norms.
Articles in this section outline several such cases—the 1989 Supreme Court ruling to insert a disclaimer before a television serial on Tipu Sultan’s life claiming it depicts his life truly; the assassination of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar in 2013; the 2014 speech by Hindu Rashtra Sena leaders in Pune, that lead to communal violence and the death of Mohsin Sheikh; and the 2014 uproar against Perumal Murugan’s book, Madhorubhagan. Some articles also describe how right-wing groups across the country feel empowered to dictate what the people should read and watch.
It must be noted that while the intent of the speeches that have led to communal disharmony and violence can and must be questioned, at the same time, the use of the politics of “hurt religious sentiments” to organise violence must also be questioned. This leads to legal ambiguity. How can a distinction be drawn between individuals giving deliberate malicious speeches aimed at outraging religious sentiments and spreading enmity on the one hand and exercising their freedom of speech on the other?
- Freedom of Speech in Universities | A G Noorani, 1991
- Blasphemy and Religious Criticism | Nasim Ansari, 1992
- Hate Speech and Free Speech | A G Noorani, 1992
- Politics of Religious Hate-Beyond the Bills | Anil Nauriya, 1993
- Police as Film Censors | A G Noorani, 1995
- Hate Propaganda in Gujarat Press and Bardoli Riots | Ghanshyam Shah, 1998
- Art in the Time of Cholera | Sumanta Banerjee, 2000
- From Coercion to Power Relations | Someswar Bhowmik, 2003
- Habib Tanvir under Attack | Sudhanva Deshpande, 2003
- Cartoon Protests: Religion and Freedom | EPW Editorial, 2006
- Ban on Films: Break the Silence | EPW Editorial, 2007
- Taslima Case: Accountability of Elected Representatives | K G Kannabiran and Kalpana Kannabiran, 2007
- Free Speech - Hate Speech: The Taslima Nasreen Case | Iqbal A Ansari, 2008
- Films and Free Speech | A G Noorani, 2008
- Free Speech and Religion | A G Noorani, 2009
- Religion, Freedom of Speech and Imaging the Prophet | Sudha Sitharaman, 2010
- Cartoons, Caste and Politics | Manjit Singh, 2012
- Ambedkar Cartoon Controversy | EPW Editorial, 2012
- Cartoons, Textbooks and Politics of Pedagogy | G Arunima, 2012
- The Constitution, Cartoons and Controversies | Kumkum Roy, 2012
- Through the Lens of a Constitutional Republic | Peter Ronald deSouza, 2012
- Symbolic Injury as a Site of Protest | Sheba Tejani, 2012
- Ashis Nandy's Critics and India's Thriving Democracy | Indrajit Roy, 2013
- The Dilemmas and Challenges faced by the Rationalist Indian | T V Venkateswaran, 2013
- The Age of Hurt Sentiments | Kannan Sundaram, 2015
- Intolerance of Dissent | Megha Bahl and Sharmila Purkayastha, 2015
- The Tyranny of 'Hurt' Feelings | Ambrose Pinto, 2015
- Unofficial Censors | EPW Editorial, 2015
- 'Hurt': Old Sentiment, New Claims | Manash Bhattacharjee, 2015
- Instigators of Murderous Mobs | Prashant Singh, 2016
- The Republic of Reasons | Alok Rai, 2016
- Hate Speech, Hurt Sentiment, and the (Im)Possibility of Free Speech | Siddharth Narrain, 2016
- Harmful Speech and the Politics of Hurt Sentiments | Philipp Sperner, 2016
- Republic of Hurt Sentiments | Vikram Raghavan and Iqra Zainul Abedin, 2017
- The Game of Hurt Sentiments | EPW Editorial, 2017
- Sexual Harassment and the Limits of Speech | Rukmini Sen, 2017
- Dangerous Speech in Real Time: Social Media, Policing, and Communal Violence | Siddharth Narrain, 2017
- Social Media Accountability | Alok Prasanna Kumar, 2018
- A Blasphemy Law is Antithetical to India's Secular Ethos | Surbhi Karwa and Shubham Kumar, 2019
- India Needs a Fresh Strategy to Tackle Online Extreme Speech | Sahana Udupa, 2019
- Muzzling Artistic Liberty and Protesting Anti-conversion Bill in Jharkhand | Sujit Kumar, 2019
- Speech as Action | Richa Shukla and Dalorina Nath, 2020
- Do Indian Courts Face A Dilemma in Interpreting Hate Speech? | Neha Gupta and Kavya Gupta, 2020
Freedom of Speech and Reasonable Restrictions
“Freedom of expression is a privilege for some and denied to others while those strangling free expression continue to unabashedly sing the mantra of freedom and democracy’’ (EPW editorial, 16 September 2017). This quote captures the manner in which this freedom can be manipulated. For the functioning of any democracy, it is of importance that its citizens are guaranteed the freedom of speech with reasonable restrictions. The state has to ensure that its citizens can exercise this fundamental right without any threat to their personal liberty.
The implementation of this right in the context of book bans, censoring films and plays has often been contested in courts and judgments have taken a progressive stance. This freedom of expression applies not only to easily agreeable ideas but also to “ideas that offend, shock or disturb” the audience. The censor board has often overstepped its role as a certification body and outrageously demanded cuts in films and sometimes even a change in the narrative. The courts have rescued many films such as the Hindi film Udta Punjab, the Tamil film Ore Oru Gramathile and many others, from the subjective ruling of the censor board. In recent times, content put out on social media and the role of fake news in spreading disruptive misinformation has also become a subject of discussion in light of the manner in which restrictions can be placed. Scholars have discussed whether social media users or the platforms themselves should be held responsible for communications that promote hateful speech and intolerance. Discussions are geared towards the likely consequences of online censorship.
Articles in this section discuss the basis of “reasonable restrictions” to the freedom of speech in India on the grounds of “public interest.” The debates regarding what constitutes a “reasonable” restriction are also covered here.
- Censorship: Scope and Limitations | EPW Legal Correspondent, 1976
- Film Censorship | A G Noorani, 1983
- TV Films and Censorship | A G Noorani, 1990
- Film Censorship and Freedom | A G Noorani, 1994
- Who Draws the Line-Feminist Reflections on Speech and Censorship | Ratna Kapur, 1996
- Politics of Film Censorship | Someswar Bhowmik, 2002
- Mutilated Liberty and the Constitution | Nirmalendu Bikash Rakshit, 2003
- Book Banning | A G Noorani, 2007
- The Constitution and Censorship of Plays | A G Noorani, 2008
- Turning the Spotlight on the Media | EPW Editorial, 2011
- Censoring the Internet: The New Intermediary Guidelines | Rishab Bailey, 2012
- Does Censorship Ever Work? | Geeta Seshu, 2012
- We Do Not 'Like' | EPW Editorial, 2012
- Two Films, Two Opinions | EPW Editorial, 2015
- Certify, Not Censor | EPW Editorial, 2016
- The Persuasions of Intolerance | Janaki Srinivasan, 2016
- First Amendment to Constitution of India | C K Mathew, 2016
- Flight of Common Sense | EPW Editorial, 2016
- Taking Free Speech Seriously | Vikram Raghavan, 2016
- A Twisted Freedom | EPW Editorial, 2017
- Censorship through the Ages | Suhrith Parthasarathy, 2018
- The Real and the Fake in Democracy | Gopal Guru, 2019
- Proscribing the ‘Inconvenient’ | Dhaval Kulkarni, 2020
- Safeguarding Fundamental Rights | Madan Bhimrao Lokur, 2020
- Predicament of the Social Media Ordinance | EPW Editorial, 2020
Freedom of Speech and Morality
When it comes to maintaining decency and morality, the fundamental right to free speech can be restricted. This controversial ground of restriction has been the subject of much discussion and debate, especially in the context of censorship of art and literature, with most of the censoring having been sought to protect the public from depictions of obscenity. However, as was the case with maintaining public order, courts have not always applied the law consistently and are rooted in what has been referred to as a “colonial hangover of the moral police.”
The arts are particularly susceptible to judgments on morality and decency—cinema even more so. Several articles in this section deal with India’s film censor board, questioning its lack of clarity, purpose, people and qualifications. The censor board has been criticised for adhering to a “Victorian legacy” and clinging to India’s colonial past. Censorship legislation was introduced in 1918 when cinema needed to serve colonial interests. Films back then were politically manipulated, withdrawn or promoted depending on their material, something that seems to have been followed to varying degrees even post-independence. In 1998, the screening of Deepa Mehta’s film, Fire, was stopped by Shiv Sainiks and referred back to the censor board. Since then, there have been several instances of the Hindu right attempting to capture India’s cultural spaces and redefine “mainstream morality” in line with its idea of Indian society. Their actions, legal and otherwise, have been a major point of debate and discussion in the papers included in this section. The articles in this section cover issues from banning plays, revising books, controlling the media, in addition to censoring films.
Courts have sought to remove the arbitrariness in the characterisation of what constitutes public morality by devising various tests of acceptable standards of public speech. But these tests have changed and evolved over time. In this context, several articles raise the pertinent question of how morality should be defined and who has the authority to do so.
- From Obscenity to Gherao | Nireekshak, 1967
- Policemen and Obscenity | A G Noorani, 1981
- Women Films and Censorship | S Sujatha, 1982
- Bogey of the Bawdy-Changing Concept of Obscenity in 19th Century Bengali Culture | Sumanta Banerjee, 1987
- Police and Porn | A G Noorani, 1995
- Set This House on Fire | Carol Upadhya, 1998
- Mirror Politics: ‘Fire’, Hindutva and Indian Culture | Mary E John and Tejaswini Niranjana, 1999
- Cultural Politics of Fire | Ratna Kapur, 1999
- Conferring 'Moral Rights' on Actors | Vinay Ganesh Sitapati, 2003
- From Coercion to Power Relations | Someswar Bhowmik, 2003
- Entangled Histories | Anjali Arondekar, 2006
- Dance Bar Girls and the Feminist's Dilemma | Nalini Rajan, 2007
- The Item Number: Cinesexuality in Bollywood and Social Life | Rita Brara, 2010
- Cheerleaders in the Indian Premier League | Ashwini Tambe and Shruti Tambe, 2010
- 'Gaylords' of Bollywood: Politics of Desire in Hindi Cinema | Rama Srinivasan, 2011
- Yours Censoriously | Ashish Rajadhyaksha, 2014
- No Offence Taken | Avishek Parui, 2014
- Banning Child Pornography | Anant Kumar, 2016
- Colonial Hangover of the Moral Police | EPW Editorial, 2016
Freedom of Speech and Contempt of Court
Codified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the judiciary has the power to punish both civil and criminal contempt—civil contempt is the willful disobedience to a judgment and criminal contempt is when an act lowers the authority of the court, interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice. However, contempt of court sometimes conflicts with the fundamental right to freedom of speech. And while fair criticism of judicial pronouncements is not within the definition of contempt, the interpretation of contempt is in the hands of the courts themselves and can lead to arbitrary legal action against dissenters.
Articles in this section have discussed widening the ambit of contempt of court over the years and its failure to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the administration of justice.
The 1967 E M S Namboodiripad v T N Nambiar case, where Namboodiripad was convicted for contempt of court by the Kerala High Court; the 1999 Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India case where the Supreme Court contemplated contempt proceedings against Arundhati Roy; the 2001 proceedings against Delhi-based Wah India Magazine for “rating” judges; the 2016 Govindaswamy v State of Kerala case, where the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to Justice Markandey Katju for criticising its judgment; the 2017 contempt proceedings against Justice C S Karnan, a sitting judge of the Calcutta High Court for levelling allegations of corruption against several judges without evidence, the 2020 contempt proceedings against advocate, Prashant Bhushan for two tweets about the conduct of the Chief Justice of India; against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and cartoonist Rachita Taneja for tweeting about the Supreme Court granting journalist Arnab Goswami interim bail—the articles in this section cover several such cases and highlight the underlying systemic issues and general institutional decline of the judiciary.
While some proceedings are perhaps warranted, scholars argue that the contempt jurisdiction was not meant to be used in this spirit. As India’s laws are based on English laws, it has also been pointed out that the contempt law is obsolete in England. Articles in this section suggest that a solution needs to be found, such that the implementation of this law protects the freedom of speech as well as permits the administration of justice in a fair manner.
- Freedom of Speech and Contempt of Court | S P Sathe, 1970
- Public Discussion and Contempt of Court | A G Noorani, 1984
- On Contempt, Contemners and Courts | Vinod Vyasulu, 1995
- NBA Contempt of Court Case | S P Sathe, 2001
- Contempt of Court and Free Speech | A G Noorani, 2001
- Judging the Judges | Sumanta Banerjee, 2002
- Accountability of the Supreme Court | S P Sathe, 2002
- Accountability of Supreme Court | P Chandrasekhar, 2002
- Ayodhya Issue and Freedom of Expression | P Radhakrishnan, 2002
- Truth on Its Way to Half a Victory | Sukumar Mukhopadhyay, 2006
- Judicial Accountability or Illusion? | Prashant Bhushan, 2006
- Judicial Pronouncements and Caste | Rakesh Shukla, 2006
- Uses and Abuses of the Potent Power of Contempt | Rahul Donde, 2007
- The Contempt of Evidence | Madhu Bhaduri, 2007
- Lawless Lawyers | A G Noorani, 2008
- Judicial Accountability: Asset Disclosures and Beyond | Prashant Bhushan, 2009
- The Insulation of India's Constitutional Judiciary | Abhinav Chandrachud, 2010
- Media Follies and Supreme Infallibility | Sukumar Muralidharan, 2012
- A Judicial Doctrine of Postponement and the Demands of Open Justice | Sukumar Muralidharan, 2012
- Supreme Court's Decision on Reporting of Proceedings | Raghav Shankar, 2012
- Defend Freedom of Expression | Kumari Jayawardena et al, 2014
- Debating Contempt of Court | Alok Prasanna Kumar, 2016
- The Curious Case of Justice Karnan | Smita Chakraburtty, 2017
- The Crisis in the Judiciary | Alok Prasanna Kumar, 2017
- Supreme No More | EPW Editorial, 2017
- A Decade of Decay | Alok Prasanna Kumar, 2020
- The Supreme Court: Then and Now | Justice A P Shah, 2020
- Contempt of Court: Does Criticism Lower the Authority of the Judiciary? | EPW Engage, 2021
Freedom of Speech and Defamation
Restrictions concerning defamation seek to protect an individual’s right to reputation and dignity against another’s right to free speech and information. Similar to other reasonable restrictions to free speech, the defamation law cuts both ways. As the individual’s right to reputation and dignity stems from the right to privacy and the right to life and liberty, it seeks to protect individuals from false and frivolous claims about their private lives that can harm their public image. On the other hand, defamation laws have been misused to harass the media and deter it from accurate reporting, and in more malicious cases such as those of sexual assault, they have been deployed against survivors forcing them to defend themselves. Articles in this section highlight the fact that defamation laws have been used to pursue SLAPPs (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) which accentuate pre-existing gendered power imbalances.
The 2021 criminal defamation case against Priya Ramani by M J Akbar is a classic example of a powerful man with greater resources, using the high cost of litigation to intimidate a sexual harassment survivor. A few other cases that have been featured are related to the press. Typically, the press is free to comment on any public figure and is not guilty of defamation unless the defendant proves otherwise. The 2008 defamation case by Justice P B Sawant against the television news channel Times Now; the 2005 defamation case against Mediaah and the 2011 case against The Hoot by the Times group itself, are a few of the cases that articles in this section comment on. While criminal defamation laws have been challenged in court, they have also been upheld as being constitutionally valid. Articles in this section have called for a debate on the defamation law, and an interrogation into the interests of “big business and big media and the state.”
- Defamation Bill: High Political Status | A Correspondent, 1988
- Retrogression and Defamation-The Cost of the Pending Bills | Anil Nauriya, 1988
- Local Bodies Cannot Sue for Libel | A G Noorani, 1992
- Law of Libel in Pakistan | A G Noorani, 2002
- Defamation and Public Advocacy | S P Sathe, 2003
- Judicial Meanderings in Patriarchal Thickets: Litigating Sex Discrimination in India | Kalpana Kannabiran, 2009
- Defamation and Its Real Dangers | EPW Editorial, 2011
- Browbeating Free Speech | Saurav Datta, 2013
- Legalising Defamation of Delinquent Borrowers | Shamba Dey, 2014
- Diminishing Values | Abir Dasgupta, 2017
- The Kejriwal Conundrum | EPW Editorial, 2018
- Centring Women’s Experience | Sneha Visakha, 2021
Freedom of Speech and National Security
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which defines sedition, was first introduced by the British to suppress dissent and was used to punish speech that incited “disaffection” against the colonial state. Since this law has been repealed in Britain, its existence in India has been a subject of inquiry for many scholars. The existence of this law gives the state an upper hand in determining, often arbitrarily, the answer to the question of what constitutes a threat to the security of the state. Such laws have also been used to criminalise dissent and criticism against the state and have been invoked indiscriminately against activists, journalists and other public figures.
Even students have not been spared. Institutions of higher education are spaces for critical thinking and questioning the current establishment. The manner in which students from Jawaharlal Nehru University, University of Hyderabad and other institutions were dealt with for holding views different from the popular right-wing understanding, has set an undesirable precedent. Considerable restrictions were placed on the Kashmiri media after the abrogation of Article 370 in 2020, and it was argued that these restrictions were in “national interest.” Even though the rationale of these laws is to protect the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the state, these laws can restrict citizens from expressing their dissent with the ruling government. The existence and scope of sedition laws have been a subject of debate. Thus, articles in this section explore the notion of a university, nationhood, freedom of speech, targeted attack on dissent and the recent clampdown on media in Kashmir.
- Maps and Freedom of Speech | A G Noorani, 1989
- Censoring Behind the Barricade | A G Noorani, 1993
- Silencing Dissenting Voices | Harish Dhawan and Nagraj Adve, 2008
- Contempt of Justice | EPW Editorial, 2011
- 'Disaffection' and the Law: The Chilling Effect of Sedition Laws in India | Siddharth Narrain, 2011
- How Democracy 'Uses' a Colonial Law | Moushumi Basu and Deepika Tandon, 2016
- Where is this Self-Proclaimed Nationalism Coming From? | Kanhaiya Kumar, 2016
- Targeting Institutions of Higher Education | Romila Thapar, 2016
- There Are No Wholesale Answers | Adfer Rashid Shah, 2016
- Freedom of Speech in the University | Partha Chatterjee, 2016
- The University and Its Outside | Udaya Kumar, 2016
- University and the Nation | Manash Bhattacharjee, 2016
- The Court Fails the Citizen | EPW Editorials, 2016
- University as Battleground | EPW Editorial, 2017
- 'Seditious' Struggle for Rights? | Deba Ranjan, 2017
- Free Speech, Nationalism & Sedition | A P Shah, 2017
- Sedition Cross-examined | Ankita Pandey, 2019
- Silence in the Valley: Kashmiri Media After the Abrogation of Article 370 | Laxmi Murthy and Geeta Seshu, 2019
- Kashmir Media Policy: Accentuating the Curbs on the Freedom of Press | Geeta Seshu, 2020
- Sedition in India: Colonial Legacy, Misuse and Effect on Free Speech | EPW Engage, 2021
Freedom of Speech and Right to Information
Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, information previously inaccessible such as government records and data is made available to the public. With some exceptions, the RTI Act aims to facilitate not only the dissemination of information to the public but also encourage transparency and accountability in governance. Only an informed citizenry can meaningfully exercise its rights of voting and organising. Thus, the right to free speech goes hand in hand with the right to information.
The Supreme Court has held that the right to information is an integral part of freedom of expression. This right was codified in 2005 after a hard-fought grassroots battle for nine years, but attempts have been made to dilute it. Further, RTI activists in states including Gujarat have been exposed to violence due to inadequate protection. These violent attacks not only increase the cost of information but also hinder the effective functioning of the RTI Act. In recent years, the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill of 2019 has been critiqued by various scholars for undermining the authority of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners.
The articles under this section focus on how this law came into being from the bill on freedom of information, the purview of the act, the revolutionary access to information it provided, the threat it faces from various amendments, and the challenges in implementation.
- The Press Council s Bill on Right to Information | A G Noorani, 1996
- Right to Information | Madhav Godbole, 2000
- Goa: Perils of Knowing | Frederick Noronha, 2001
- Right to Information on Candidates | Samuel Paul, 2002
- Maharashtra: Quiet Burial of Right to Information | S S Wagle, 2003
- Right to Information: Slow Progress | EPW Editorials, 2004
- Right to Information and the Road to Heaven | Oulac Niranjan, 2005
- Power to the People | EPW Editorials, 2005
- Right to Information Act: Loopholes and Road Ahead | O P Kejriwal, 2006
- Right to Information: An Amendment Too Soon | EPW Editorials, 2006
- Public Authority and the RTI | Prabodh Saxena, 2009
- Efficacy of RTI Act | Prem Singh Dahiya, 2009
- Murder of RTI Activist | Ajit Bhattacharjea et al, 2010
- Death of RTI Activist | NCPRI and UFRTI, 2010
- The Right to Know | EPW Editorials, 2009
- High Cost of Information | EPW Editorial, 2010
- WikiLeaks, the New Information Cultures and Digital Parrhesia | Pramod K Nayar, 2010
- Running Down a Positive Law | EPW Editorial, 2012
- Investigating Compliance of the RTI Act | Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, 2013
- Attempts to Erode RTI Mechanism | N Sai Vinod, 2014
- Known Unknowns of RTI | Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, 2014
- Death by Neglect | EPW Editorial, 2015
- Revisiting 11 Years of RTI | Rajvir S Dhaka, 2016
- One Decade of the RTI Act | Alok Prasanna Kumar, 2017
- Right to Privacy and RTI Act | Madabhushi Sridhar, 2017
- Contestations of the RTI Act | Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, 2017
- The Struggle of RTI Activists in Gujarat | Christophe Jaffrelot and Basim-U-Nissa, 2018
- Downgrading the Status of Chief Information Commissioner | M Sridhar Acharyulu, 2018
- Despite Free and Fair Elections, Our Idea of the Republic Is at Risk | Vidya Venkat, 2019
- Amended RTI vs Participatory Democracy | EPW Editorial, 2019
- Amendment to the RTI | Satark Nagrik Sangathan, 2019
- The True Dangers of the RTI (Amendment) Bill | Alok Prasanna Kumar, 2019
Freedom of Speech and Press Freedom
The right to freedom of speech and expression is considered indispensable for nearly every other form of freedom. There is no specific provision in the Constitution guaranteeing press freedom because freedom of the press is included under the wider purview of freedom of speech and expression, which are a part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, restrictions on this freedom are often a way for the ruling establishment to suppress dissent.
Articles also discuss the importance of freedom of speech and the need for a free press in India. The murder of Gauri Lankesh at her home in broad daylight exposed the consequences of dissent that journalists face even today. Violent physical assault, as well as the murder of journalists investigating contentious issues, a need to protect reporter’s privilege and source confidentiality under the freedom of press, the employment conditions of journalists and free speech in a digital world, are some of the themes that articles in this section explore. The precarious contractual employment of journalists inhibits them from reporting against the official stand of the management of the media house. Thus, challenges to freedom of press by non-state actors such as media conglomerates, the ownership patterns of media companies and the information that is circulated are also discussed. The issue of “paid news” and how to place regulatory checks on such news has also been discussed in the pages of EPW.
- Liberating the Press | Nireekshak, 1971
- Will the Press Be Free | Nireekshak, 1971
- Freeing the Free Press | Pran Chopra, 1971
- Towards a Free Press | Pran Chopra, 1979
- Power of Expunction and Press Censorship | A G Noorani, 1981
- Assaults on Journalists and Powers of Magistrates | A G Noorani, 1986
- Censorship through Guns | 1988
- Press Freedom and Legal Remedies | A G Noorani, 1990
- Freedom of Press as an Institution | A G Noorani, 1991
- Can a Source Sue a Journalist | A G Noorani, 1992
- Journalists Rights | A G Noorani, 1997
- Beyond the Market, Freedom Matters | K G Kumar, 2001
- Narendra Modi's Directive to the Press | A G Noorani, 2002
- Opening a Window, Just | Krishna Kumar, 2002
- The Constitution and Journalists? Sources | A G Noorani, 2006
- Manufacturing 'News' | Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, 2011
- Stung by the Sting | EPW Editorial, 2012
- Free Speech in the Digital World under Threat? | Kirsty Hughes, 2012
- Quashing Dissent: Where National Security and Commercial Media Converge | Sukumar Muralidharan, 2013
- Curbing Media Monopolies | Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, 2013
- Who Does the Media Serve in Odisha? | Sudhir Pattnaik, 2014
- What Future for the Media in India? | Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, 2014
- Killing the Messengers | EPW Editorial, 2015
- Questions on the Technologies of Fascism | Santhosh S, 2016
- Concentration of Media Ownership and the Imagination of Free Speech | Smarika Kumar, 2016
- Media and Modi | Kingshuk Nag, 2016
- ‘Malicious and Unjust’ — Powerful Media Houses vs Journalists | Samrat, 2017
- Gauri Lankesh’s murder was not the first: To make it the last, the time to turn fearless is now | Nandana Reddy, 2017
- Why Gauri Lives On | EPW Editorial, 2017
- Mapping the Power of Major Media Companies in India | Anuradha Bhattacharjee and Anushi Agrawal, 2018
- Newsgatherers’ Privilege to Source Protection | Sohini Chatterjee, 2018
- Selling the Fourth Estate: How Free is Indian Media? | EPW Engage, 2018
- Media in the Time of COVID-19 | Bhupen Singh, 2020
- TRPs or Truth? | Ahmed Raza, 2020
- Free Speech and Media Freedom in Corporate India | Arani Basu, 2020

Back to top
Curated by Anandita Chandra and Vasuprada Tatavarty
Designed by Vishnupriya Bhandaram
With inputs from Alok Prasanna Kumar and Shruti Sundar Ray