Freedom of Expression in India: The First Amendment and Its Legacy

The discourse on freedom of expression in India is deeply intertwined with the First Amendment to the Constitution, introduced in 1951 by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. This amendment significantly altered India's constitutional philosophy by expanding permissible restrictions on speech.

Background of the First Amendment

• Initially, Article 19(2) of the Constitution allowed limited restrictions on free speech, such as defamation and state security.
• Early judicial interpretations favored free speech, which often clashed with governmental restrictions.

Changes Brought by the First Amendment

• The Amendment broadened the scope for restrictions to include: 
  1. Public order
  2. Friendly relations with foreign states
  3. Incitement to an offence
  4. Morality and decency
• This shift allowed the state to impose preventive and punitive actions, legitimizing censorship and restrictions on dissent.

This change marked a transition from a libertarian model of speech towards one focused on national stability, impacting India's constitutional discourse to this day.

The Role of the Judiciary and Political Dynamics

• Recent judicial perspectives, like those from Justice Surya Kant, emphasize aligning public discourse with constitutional responsibility.
• Prime Minister Narendra Modi's experience with verbal attacks highlights the need for consistency in defending free speech across political lines.

Historical and Global Context

• Events like the Emergency and the Aseem Trivedi case illustrate the inconsistencies in political stances on free speech.
• Globally, thinkers like Francis Fukuyama have reconsidered the dominance of liberal democracy.

Balancing Freedom and Responsibility

• John Stuart Mill's warning on limiting individual liberty to prevent nuisances is relevant today.
• Instances of identity politics in military discourse highlight the need for restraint and respect for institutional sanctity.

The Need for Equal Access to Freedom

• The writer shares a personal experience of being "cancelled" from speaking engagements due to political beliefs or social origin.
• This incident underscores the disparity in free speech privileges between elite backgrounds and subaltern voices.

The right to express and be heard must be protected for all, ensuring democratic discourse is inclusive and not exclusive to any class.