This act was brought about in the backdrop of a series of murders of Arya Samaj leaders who polemicized against Islam.
[2][3] Precedence to this law started even before this as in a case against Arya Samaj preacher Dharm Bir in 1915, ten Muslims were sentenced for rioting, but Dharm Bir was also charged under section 298 for "using offensive phrases and gestures (…) with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings" of another community; and under Section 153, for "wantonly provoking the riot which subsequently occurred" and "a judge was brought in who could assure conviction".
[5] The Constitution of India Bill 1895, widely considered to be the first Indian articulation of a constitutional vision, contained the following provision related to freedom of speech and expression - 'Every citizen may express his thoughts by words or writings, and publish them in print without liability to censure, but they shall be answerable to abuses, which they may commit in the exercise of this right, in the cases and in the mode the Parliament shall determine.'
In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras,[8] Patanjali Shastri, Chief Justice observed: "Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible."
for Democratic Reforms:[9] "Onesided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce.
In Indian Express v. Union of India,[10] it has been held that the press plays a very significant role in the democratic machinery.
The court struck down the Section 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949, which directed the editor and publisher of a newspaper "to submit for scrutiny, in duplicate, before the publication, till the further orders , all communal matters all the matters and news and views about Pakistan, including photographs, and cartoons", on the ground that it was a restriction on the liberty of the press.
[14] Under Indian law, the freedom of speech and of the press do not confer an absolute right to express one's thoughts freely.
This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 in order to meet the situation arising from the Supreme Court's decision in Romesh Thapar's case (AIR 1950 SC 124).
[18] A law punishing the utterances deliberately tending to hurt the religious feelings of any class has been held to be valid as it is a reasonable restriction aimed to maintaining the public order.
In Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohiya (AIR 1960 SC 633), the Court held the Section 3 of U.P.
Similarly, the court upheld the validity of the provision empowering a Magistrate to issue directions to protect the public order or tranquillity.
In an English case of R. v. Hicklin,[21] the test was laid down according to which it is seen 'whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene tend to deprave and corrupt the minds which are open to such immoral influences'.
This test was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 881).
The erstwhile Economic & Political Weekly (EPW) Editor Paranjoy Guha Thakurta's resignation following a legal notice by the lawyers for Adani Power Limited (APL) to the owners – the trustees of Sameeksha Trust, which owns and runs the Journal, Editor and authors of an article later withdrawn for "failing to meet editorial standards," brought the reach of IPC's Section 499[22] back into limelight.
The Indian Constitution, while not mentioning the word "press", provides for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" (Article 19(1) a).
However this right is subject to restrictions under sub clause, whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt, court, defamation, or incitement to an offense".
In explaining the decline, RWB cited growing intolerance from Hindu nationalist supporters of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the murders of journalists such as Gauri Lankesh.
[30] Hate speech laws in India are regularly abused by political organisations and other influential people.
Although these cases rarely result in a conviction, it is used as a form of intimidation which leads to wide spread self-censorship by the people.
The vague phrase "decency or morality" used in article 19(2) of the constitution has long enabled the state to engage in wide spread moral policing of mass media and the film and entertainment industry as religious groups often object to liberal ideas and deem all progressive values as indecent.
[31] The Indian Constitution, while not mentioning the word "press", provides for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" (Article 19(1) a).
However this right is subject to restrictions under subclause (2), whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of "sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence".
Under POTA, person could be detained for up to six months before the police were required to bring charges on allegations for terrorism-related offences.
Indira Gandhi famously stated in 1975 that All India Radio is "a Government organ, it is going to remain a Government organ..."[34][35] On 26 June 1975, the day after the so-called emergency was declared in violation of the natural rights of Indian citizens, the Mumbai edition of The Times of India in its obituary column carried an entry that read "D.E.M O'Cracy beloved husband of T.Ruth, father of L.I.Bertie, brother of Faith, Hope and Justica expired on 26 June".
Organisations like Tehelka and NDTV have been particularly influential, e.g. in bringing about the resignation of powerful Haryana minister Venod Sharma.
In addition, laws like Prasar Bharati act passed in recent years contribute significantly to reducing the control of the press by the government.
[37][38] According to the English Law, sedition embraces all the practices whether by word or writing which are calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the State and lead an ignorant person to subvert the Government.
[45] The sedition laws have empowered the executive branch of the government to use the ambiguously defined provision as an instrument to regulate public opinion and indiscriminately wield power.