This clause was added to the Constitution by way of the first amendment in 1951, following which it was established that a law can impose “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression on the following grounds - 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, contempt of court or in relation to incitement of an offence.

As one can see, the grounds on which these restrictions can be imposed are quite broad, and thus substantially limit freedom of speech and expression. But what is being “reasonable”? Who decides what constitutes reasonableness? This is subject to interpretation by the courts in our country. These restrictions, of course, can be imposed by the Parliament on any of these seven grounds, and it is the courts that evaluate whether such restrictions are “reasonable".

Furthermore, the wording of the clause suggests it not only allows the legislature to promulgate any law that imposes reasonable restrictions, but it also permits any law in operation to continue with these restrictions. This should be read along with Article 13 of the Constitution, which defines what law is. This Article strikes down any law that is in contravention of Part III of the Constitution - in other words, all laws that were enacted before Independence are only void to the extent that they infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens. This meant that the sedition law in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) continues to be in operation.

As you can see, the right to free speech and expression in our country is substantially restricted - and this was clear from the very first amendment itself. This Amendment was moved by Jawaharlal Nehru - even before the election of the first Parliament, in the constituent assembly (interestingly, B R Ambedkar supported the first amendment while S P Mukherjee, who went on to found the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, opposed it), and while the Preamble states a very valid reason for limits on free speech (the courts held that even criminal incitement of an offence was protected, an extremely remarkable progressive position) - for no rights can be absolute – the restrictions were more than what was bargained for, as it substantially curtails the right to free speech and expression.

Having explained the legal provision and limits for freedom of speech and expression, it is important to explore another important limit to free speech: defamation. The right to freedom of speech and expression, while recognising the right to speak one’s mind, does not mean that the person can use such a justification to legitimise his pronouncements. The right to free speech does not include the right to defame or slander. One may be free to speak his or her mind, but he or she is not free from the consequences of such exercise of free speech. This is an almost universally recognised limitation to free speech in liberal democracies everywhere. The distinction in India is the unfortunate legality of criminal defamation, which means that one can be sent to jail for up to two years according to Section 500 of the IPC. This is absolutely unnecessary, and should be struck down at the earliest considering the unjust punishment that it carries. Defamation can only be a civil wrong.

That being said, an action by one person against another for defamation is not something that “restricts” such a right. As discussed before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of that free speech. Let’s for instance look at the recent instance of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader sending historian and author Ramachandra Guha a defamation notice for holding the Sangh Parivar responsible for the murder of Gauri Lankesh and other rationalists. The bogey of free speech was raised by many in this issue, and Guha himself tweeted that: “Atal Bihari Vajpyee said the article to a book or an article can only be another book or article. But we no longer live in Vajpyee’s India”