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.
On 24 September 2025, the Karnataka High Court upheld the Centre's Sahyog Portal, holding that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act is a standalone source of authority for information-blocking notices and that Shreya Singhal does not occupy the field.
On 6 April 2026, a two-judge bench set aside convictions under section 294(b) IPC for use of an expletive in a heated exchange, holding that mere abusive or vulgar language without sexual or prurient content does not amount to obscenity.
On 14 August 2021, a Bombay High Court division bench stayed Rules 9(1) and 9(3) of the IT Rules 2021 pan-India — holding that the Code of Ethics for digital news media travels beyond the rule-making power conferred by the IT Act and chills Article 19(1)(a) speech.
A Bombay High Court division bench split 1-1 in January 2024 on the constitutional validity of the IT Rules 2023 Fact Check Unit. The tie-breaking opinion of Justice A.S. Chandurkar in September 2024 struck down Rule 3(1)(b)(v) — vague, overbroad, and structurally inviting the state to be judge in its own cause.
On 22 July 1992, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (A.M. Ahmadi J. authoring, with M.M. Punchhi J. concurring) held that the Life Insurance Corporation is 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution and is bound by Part III fundamental rights; that the right of reply — the right of a citizen to use the same forum that has carried criticism of his work to publish a rejoinder — is integral to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a); and that non-statutory administrative guidelines cannot ground a restriction on speech under Article 19(2). The companion appeal concerning Tapan Bose's documentary 'Beyond Genocide' on the Bhopal gas disaster applied the same framework to Doordarshan. The judgment is the doctrinal bridge between Sukhdev Singh's Article 12 jurisprudence and the broadcasting-access cases that culminated in Cricket Association of Bengal.
On 21 April 2026, a two-judge bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court convicted advocate Gulshan Pahuja — who runs the YouTube channel 'Fight 4 Judicial Reforms' — of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for content that the Court held was designed to scandalise the judiciary as a whole. On 16 May 2026, the same Bench sentenced Pahuja to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 in each of two criminal contempt cases. The judgment is a recent doctrinal application of the line between fair criticism and contempt of court in the digital-content environment.
A five-judge Bench in 1962 upheld Section 124A IPC, but only by reading into it the limitation that has governed sedition prosecutions ever since. Six decades on, with the offence re-housed as Section 152 BNS, the Kedar Nath gloss remains the doctrinal floor — and the live question is whether the rewrite preserves or alters it.
On 13 May 2016, a two-judge Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code — the criminal-defamation framework — against challenges based on the freedom of speech and expression. The reasoning rested on the proposition that reputation is constitutionally protected under Article 21, and that the criminal-defamation framework, properly construed, does not produce an undue chilling effect on expression. A digest of the holding, the doctrinal architecture, and the contemporary practitioner's framework.