I. Free Speech, Technology & Emergency Powers
Free study material · concepts, shortcuts & solved questions
| Case | Year | Bench | Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras | 1950 | 6-judge | Held freedom of speech includes freedom of the press; a ban on circulating a publication needs a real, proximate nexus to "security of the State," not a vague reference to "public order." |
| Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar | 1962 | 5-judge | Upheld the constitutional validity of the sedition law (Sec. 124A IPC) but narrowed its scope drastically — it applies only to words/acts that incite or tend to incite violence or public disorder, not mere criticism of government. |
| Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India | 1973 | 5-judge | Struck down newsprint-control restrictions on newspapers as an indirect but real curb on freedom of the press under Art. 19(1)(a), even though the restriction was formally about paper allocation, not speech directly. |
| PUCL v. Union of India (Telephone Tapping case) | 1997 | — | Held unauthorised telephone tapping violates the right to privacy under Art. 21 and free speech under Art. 19(1)(a); laid down procedural safeguards for when and how the government may lawfully tap phones under the Telegraph Act. |
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India | 2015 | 2-judge | Struck down Sec. 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violating Art. 19(1)(a). |
| Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (Criminal Defamation case) | 2016 | 2-judge | Upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation (Secs. 499–500 IPC) against a challenge that it unreasonably restricted free speech, holding reputation is also protected under Art. 21. |
| Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India | 2020 | 3-judge | Held internet access is protected under Arts. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g); indefinite internet shutdowns are impermissible, and any suspension order must satisfy necessity and proportionality, and be published and periodically reviewed. |
Notes. Kedar Nath Singh is the case to know cold, given the live 2020s debate over sedition — it did not strike down Sec. 124A, it read it down to require incitement to violence, which is exactly why later cases and even a 2022 Supreme Court order kept referring back to it while the law's continued use was reconsidered.
Mnemonic. "Romesh Kept it Balanced till Phones got Tapped, Shreya got Struck, Swamy Survived, Anuradha got her Bandwidth back" — Romesh Thappar (1950) → Kedar Nath Singh (1962) → Bennett Coleman (1973) → PUCL/Telephone Tapping (1997) → Shreya Singhal (2015) → Subramanian Swamy/Defamation (2016) → Anuradha Bhasin (2020). The two "S, S" cases next to each other (Shreya Singhal struck down; Subramanian Swamy upheld) are the classic trap — one strikes a law, the other upholds one.
Practice Recall. Before reading on: which of Shreya Singhal (2015) and Subramanian Swamy (2016) struck a law down, and which upheld one?
Answer: Shreya Singhal struck down Sec. 66A of the IT Act entirely (unconstitutionally vague/overbroad). Subramanian Swamy upheld criminal defamation (Secs. 499–500 IPC) as constitutionally valid, holding reputation is also protected under Art. 21.