In 1970 a three-judge Supreme Court bench, speaking through Chief Justice Hidayatullah, upheld the criminal-contempt conviction of a sitting Chief Minister for press-conference remarks attacking the judiciary. A digest of the facts, the line between fair criticism and scandalising the court, the place of Article 19(1)(a), and the reduced fine.
In 1950 a six-judge Constitution Bench struck down a Madras ban on the weekly Cross Roads, holding that the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of circulation, and that restrictions for ordinary public order fell outside the narrow Article 19(2) as it then stood. A digest of one of the Supreme Court's first free-speech rulings and the constitutional amendment it prompted.
In April 2025 the Delhi High Court refused to injunct four social-media influencers who reviewed a protein supplement against the maker's defamation and trademark claims. Justice Amit Bansal held that evidence-based product criticism grounded in accredited lab reports is prima facie fair comment and protected free speech, not disparagement.
In 1995 a three-judge Supreme Court bench held that the airwaves are public property, that the freedom to telecast and to receive information is part of Article 19(1)(a), and that the State could not claim an absolute broadcasting monopoly. A digest of the Hero Cup dispute, the holding on spectrum and free speech, and the case's role in the birth of an independent public broadcaster.