Topic
Freedom of speech in Indian law encompasses the constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(a) to express opinions and Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peacefully, subject to reasonable restrictions.
Calcutta HC vacated the ex parte order against influencers who posted heavy-metal test results of an Ayurvedic product. The decision sets a high bar for interim injunctions in defamation, shielding critics who test products for safety.
The Calcutta High Court set aside an interim injunction in a defamation suit, ruling the trial court erred by not applying the Bonnard Principle. A plaintiff must prove the defence of truth is certain to fail at trial - not merely establish a prima facie case - to obtain pre-trial restraint. The decision raises the threshold for interim relief in defamation, strengthening free speech protections.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that using externment orders under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act to silence peaceful political dissent by a registered party official violates fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. This sets a critical precedent: opposition to government policy, even when expressed through unapproved protests, cannot be equated with public disorder warranting forced displacement.
Bombay High Court quashes externment orders under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, ruling that suppressing protests against government policies through such orders infringes fundamental rights. The judgment reinforces that externment cannot be used as a tool to curb lawful dissent, setting a precedent for protecting democratic expression.
Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that administrative classifications of land cannot supersede the constitutional right to peaceful assembly, directing authorities to consider alternative venues for public meetings. The judgment reinforces that fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(b) prevail over arbitrary municipal restrictions, setting a precedent against administrative arbitrariness in public gathering permissions.
Madras HC quashes an administrative order denying permission for a hall meeting during elections, ruling that non-speaking orders restricting assembly rights under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) are unlawful. The Court directs reconsideration of the application, reinforcing that administrative silence cannot justify restrictions on fundamental rights.
Telangana High Court quashes the arbitrary cancellation of a political party's public meeting, ruling that vague fears of public disorder cannot justify curtailing the fundamental right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) without specific, cogent reasons and prior hearing. The judgment reinforces that preventive censorship must meet constitutional scrutiny to avoid violating democratic freedoms.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that truth and public good are absolute defences under Section 499 IPC, dismissing a criminal defamation complaint against a journalist. The court held that publishing truthful information about a public servant’s financial dealings, in good faith and for public interest, does not constitute defamation, especially when the official withheld requested details.
Madras High Court quashes a police order rejecting permission for a political conference, ruling that arbitrary denial without affording a hearing or providing reasoned grounds infringes the fundamental right to peaceful assembly. The court emphasizes that public order concerns must be addressed through mitigation measures, not outright prohibition, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in police discretion.
Andhra Pradesh High Court upholds right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b), ruling that pending criminal cases do not justify blanket denial of public meetings.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that prior disturbances by unrelated groups cannot justify denial of peaceful protest permission; affirms fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).