In February 2025, a major controversy erupted on YouTube surrounding the show India’s Got Latent. The show’s panel, consisting of highly popular influencers, faced intense criticism for their poor sense of humor and use of vulgar, abusive language. Given YouTube’s easy accessibility, the derogatory and offensive remarks made by the panel sparked widespread outrage, raising concerns about the limits of freedom of speech and expression. Multiple FIRs were filed against the show and its panelists in different parts of the country, leading to the removal of India’s Got Latent videos from the platform.

Additionally, the scheduled stand-up comedy show of Anubhav Singh Bassi in Lucknow was cancelled, reportedly due to his previous use of indecent language. These incidents have reignited debates over the extent of free speech, the role of censorship, and content regulation on digital platforms like YouTube.

Freedom to broadcast is recognized under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to maintain public order, decency, and morality. While traditional broadcast content is regulated by laws such as the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995, its 2011 amendment, and the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act of 1990, these regulations do not extend to OTT platforms and YouTube. The absence of a clear regulatory framework for digital content has fueled discussions about whether online platforms should be brought under similar scrutiny to ensure responsible broadcasting while balancing free expression.

Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right that allows individuals to voice their thoughts, opinions, and ideas without fear of censorship or punishment. This right is recognized in key legal documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It encompasses not only verbal and written communication but also artistic, symbolic, and digital expressions. As a cornerstone of democracy, freedom of speech fosters open debate, encourages the exchange of diverse perspectives, and ensures transparency and accountability in society. By enabling individuals to express themselves freely, it empowers people and strengthens democratic values, contributing to a more informed and progressive society.

In India, the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This provision grants every citizen to express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium eg, by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc. It thus includes the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or publish opinion. But this right is subject to reasonable restrictions being imposed under Article 19(2). It is a fundamental right that upholds democratic values by allowing open discussions, criticism, and the exchange of diverse viewpoints. The concept of freedom of speech and expression in India has been influenced by British and American legal principles. It has been borrowed from the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech, and from British common law traditions. Additionally, the framers of the Indian Constitution took inspiration from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, which recognizes freedom of expression as a fundamental human right.

Along with Freedom to Broadcast there are various other rights under Article 19(1)(a)- 

• Freedom of  press 
• Freedom of commercial speech 
• Right to Information
• Right to Silence or Not to Speak

FREEDOM OF PRESS- In India, the press plays a vital role and is regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy. The recognition of press freedom as a fundamental right came after a significant struggle.

The Daily Newspaper (Price and Control) Order, 1960 was challenged in Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 as unconstitutional for violating press freedom. The order forced newspapers to increase prices without increasing pages, reducing circulation and limiting space for news and ideas. The Court struck it down, affirming that speech and expression rights cannot be restricted for business regulation beyond Article 19(2).

In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 515, the Court emphasized that press freedom, though not explicitly mentioned in Article 19(1)(a), is included within it. The state cannot interfere with content or distribution under the guise of public interest. Additionally, Censorship was addressed in Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129, where an order requiring prior approval of communal news was deemed unconstitutional. The Court ruled that restricting a newspaper’s right to express views is a serious violation of free speech.

In another case of Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India AIR 1973 SC 106, the Newsprint Control Order was challenged for limiting newspaper pages, allegedly violating Articles 19(1)(a) and 14. The Supreme Court rejected the claim but established the “effect test”—laws abridging constitutional rights can be invalid regardless of intent.

Finally, Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras  AIR 1950 SC 124, declared a law banning journal circulation unconstitutional; reinforcing that free speech includes the right to disseminate ideas. Restrictions based on “public security” or “public order” beyond Article 19(2) was ruled void.

FREEDOM OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH- An advertisement intended to promote a business falls under the scope of trade or commerce. A commercial advertisement promoting an individual’s business does qualify as an aspect of freedom of speech. The right has been recognized under the various cases by, Hamdard Dawakhana v UOI, AIR 1960 SC 554 and Tata Press Ltd v Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, AIR 1995 SC 2438 and held that “Commercial speech” is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and cannot be denied solely because it originates from businessmen. It is considered a part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Article. The general public has the right to receive commercial speech, as Article 19(1)(a) safeguards an individual’s right to listen, read, and receive such communication. This protection extends to both the speaker and the recipient of the speech. Still there are restriction imposed on such advertisement and commercial speech according to the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION- The term “freedom of speech and expression” in Article 19(1)(a) encompasses the right to obtain and share information. This right extends to communication through various media, including print, electronic, and audio-visual platforms, such as advertisements, films, articles, and speeches. The same was reiterated in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt of India v Cricket Association of Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236. Also in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court ruled that Article 19(1)(a) not only protects freedom of speech and expression but also encompasses the citizens’ right to know and receive information on matters of public interest. The reasonable restriction on right to information are provided under Article 19 (2) of Indian Constitution along with Right to Information Act 2005

RIGHT TO SILENCE OR NOT TO SPEAK- The right to speech also includes the right to remain silent. It grants the freedom not to listen and not to be compelled to hear. This right ensures individuals can avoid what they wish to be free from. In the case of Noise Pollution (V), In re, AIR 2005 SC 3136 it was held that he use of a loudspeaker may be incidental to the exercise of the right but, its use is not a matter of right, or part of the rights guaranteed by Article 19(1). Also in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), SC held that the right to speak includes the right to be silent or to utter no words.

While the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, it is not absolute and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). These restrictions are imposed to maintain public order, protect national security, and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Constitution allows the government to regulate speech in cases that may threaten the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. These limitations ensure that the right to free speech does not lead to social unrest, hate speech, or actions that harm the interests of the nation. Over the years, the Indian judiciary has been instrumental in interpreting these restrictions, ensuring a balance between individual rights and societal responsibility to uphold harmony and stability. Similarly, in the ongoing India’s Got Latent controversy, it is the judiciary’s duty to assess the situation and take appropriate action while considering the existing limitations on freedom of speech and expression.