Markandey
Freedom of speech in India
Markandey Katju 10 Dec 2025

The Allahabad High Court has recently rejected the bail application of Bhojpuri folk singer Neha Singh Rathore. The case against her arose after Neha posted several tweets in April 2025 criticizing the Prime Minister and the ruling party for allegedly exploiting a terrorist attack in Kashmir for political gain. Following the viral posts, the police registered an FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2008, alleging that her statements endangered India’s sovereignty. 
I am not going into the merits of the case as the matter may be sub judice in an appeal to the Indian Supreme Court. However, I would like to make some general observations.
In the Indian Constitution promulgated on January 26, 1950, there are a set of fundamental rights of the people, including freedom of speech and expression, modelled on the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The judiciary was made the protector and guardian of these rights, otherwise they would remain only on paper.

A few months after the promulgation of the Constitution in 1950, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras that in a democracy people have a right to criticise the government. The Court observed, “Criticism of government exciting disaffection or bad feelings towards it, is not to be regarded as a justifying ground for restricting the freedom of expression, or of the press.”

The same view in different words was taken in a decision by Justice Abdul Quddhose of the Madras High Court in his historic verdict in Thiru N.Ram vs Union of India and anr, in which the learned judge observed, “A very important aspect of democracy is that citizens should have no fear of the government. They should not be scared of expressing views which may not be liked by those in power.” He went on to say, “Criticism of the government is not sedition unless there is a call for public disorder or incitement to violence.”

Justice Quddhose also observed, following the Supreme Court’s 1956 verdict in Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab,  that people in power must develop ‘thick skins’. In other words, the authorities should have broad enough shoulders to bear criticism.

In State of Maharashtra vs Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande (2008) the Supreme Court observed that while the first object of the founding fathers was to give to the people a Constitution whereby a government was established, their second object, equally important, was to protect the people against the government. The court observed:

“The imperative necessity to protect the people’s rights is a lesson taught by all history and all human experience. Our Constitution makers had lived through bitter years of the freedom struggle, and had seen an alien government trample upon human rights which the country had fought hard to preserve. They believed, like Jefferson, that ‘an elective despotism was not the government we fought for ‘. And therefore while arming the government with large powers to prevent anarchy from within and conquest from without, they took care to ensure that these powers were not abused to mutilate the liberties of the people “

This decision is very relevant in the prevailing situation today. Nowadays politicians in power are often very touchy, and unwilling to put up with any criticism from anyone. 

 The question is whether the Supreme Court or High Courts should ignore suppression of free speech and criticism of the government, just because the government calls it sedition and a threat to national security ? What then will remain of the numerous verdicts of the court itself stating that the Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution, and protector of the people’s rights ( which includes the right to free speech ) ?

In one of its early decisions in State of Madras vs V.G. Row (1952), the Supreme Court held, “As regards fundamental rights the Court has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui vive”, an expression that  has been reiterated again and again in several decisions of the court e.g. I.R.Coelho vs the State of Tamil Nadu, (2007), Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, (2018), Shakti Vahini vs Union of India, (2018), C.Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice AM Bhattacharjee ( 1995 ), Padma vs Hiralal Motilal Desarda (2002), Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1982), Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992), etc.

The right of freedom of speech, including the right to criticise the government has again been reiterated in recent decisions of the Supreme Court, which have held that this is not sedition ( details are given in the links below ) :



I appeal to the Supreme Court to consider all that has been stated above when it hears the appeal of Neha Singh Rathore against the High Court's order rejecting her bail application.


By Justice Markandey Katju, former Judge, Indian Supreme Court



Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
SAARTH A SoOLEGAL Technologies Initiative
×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com