This article has been written by Vshrupt Modi from Kirit P.Mehta School of Law, NMIMS, Mumbai

Introduction: Background of the case

Aseem Trivedi is an Indian political cartoonist who achieved prominence in 2012 for his provocative caricatures criticising government corruption in India. After presenting his cartoons during a protest gathering in Mumbai, Trivedi was detained and accused of sedition, obscenity, and dishonouring the national emblem.

The Indian parliament was depicted in Trivedi’s cartoons as a toilet, the national insignia as a pair of wolves, and the Indian constitution as a broken chain. The cartoons were seen as a potent form of protest against corruption, as they were intended to expose the rampant corruption and lack of accountability in the Indian government.

The Indian government, however, considered Trivedi’s cartoons as a direct assault on the nation’s sovereignty and a threat to India’s unity and sovereignty. This resulted in his arrest and charges, which ignited a nationwide discussion over the right to free speech and expression.

Trivedi’s case was viewed as a test of the Indian government’s dedication to free speech and its tolerance for criticism and dissent. The case drew international attention and generated arguments on the boundaries of free speech in India and elsewhere.

Facts of the case

Indian political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested for sedition, obscenity, and dishonouring the national flag. Trivedi was charged for his infamous drawings criticising Indian government corruption.

Trivedi’s drawings depicted the Indian parliament as a toilet, the flag as wolves, and the constitution as a broken chain. The cartoons were presented at a 2012 protest event in Mumbai to expose Indian government corruption and lack of accountability. The Indian government saw Trivedi’s drawings as an attack on India’s sovereignty and unity.

India’s free speech dispute began with Trivedi’s detention. The case tested the Indian government’s commitment to free speech and tolerance of dissent. The case triggered an international debate on free speech in India and other nations. The case changed Indian politics and highlighted government corruption.

Relevant statutory provisions:

1.Section 124A(Sedition) of The Indian Penal Code 1860

Section 124A of the IPC States

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, a shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

2.The Constitution of India, 1950:

This constitutional document guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens of India. This provision states:

“All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression; this right shall include freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution provides for reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression. This provision states:

“Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

3.State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act 2005

4.Section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

The Section 2 States:

Whoever in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates, defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or otherwise shows disrespect to or brings into contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by acts) the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India or any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

5.Section 66-A of Information Technology Act^[1]

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.–Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

Judicial History / Precedents:

1. Sakal Papers v. Union of India (1962)^[2]: This case dealt with the right to freedom of speech and expression in the context of advertising. The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression was not absolute and could be restricted in the interests of public order and morality.
2. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)^[3]: This case dealt with the extent to which the right to freedom of speech and expression could be restricted in the interests of national security. The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression could be restricted in the interests of national security, but such restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate to the interests being protected.
3. S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram^[4]: In this case Supreme Court considered the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in the context of censorship under the Cinematograph Act. After a Tamil film criticised the Government policy of reservation in Government service.
4. Nazir Khan vs. State of Delhi^[5]: In this case Supreme Court explained “sedition” as defined in section 124A IPC in the following words:

“37. Section 124A deals with ‘Sedition’. Sedition is a crime against society nearly allied to that of treason, and it frequently precedes treason by a short interval.

1. Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab^[6]: In this case supreme court dealt with the usage and application of the provisions of IPC On the date of assassination of former Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, considerable tension had been generated in the State of Punjab. The appellants raised three slogans and they were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 124A and 153B of IPC.

Arguments For the Ban:

The arguments for the ban of Aseem Trivedi’s cartoons can be summarized as follows:

1. The cartoons were alleged to defame Parliament, the Constitution of India, and the Ashok Emblem, and to spread hatred and disrespect against the government.

2. The cartoons were accused of attempting to create disorder and disturbance of public peace by resorting to violence.

3. Some of the cartoons were said to have elements of wit, humor, or sarcasm, but the court found it difficult to discern any of these elements in the seven cartoons in question.

4. The court held that the freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interests of security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality.

5. The court emphasized that the security of the state and public order are the basic considerations upon which legislation, with the view to punishing offenses against the state, is undertaken.

6. The court noted that the freedom of speech and expression must be guarded against becoming a license for vilification and condemnation of the government established by law, in words that incite violence or have the tendency to create public disorder.

Arguments Against the Ban:

The arguments against the ban of Aseem Trivedi’s cartoons are as follows:

1. Freedom of Expression: The fundamental freedom of expression, protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, cannot be held ransom by an intolerant group of people. Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression.

2. Tolerance and Democracy: Intolerance is as dangerous to democracy as to the person himself. It is essential to practice tolerance to the views of others.

3. Proximity of Danger: The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to public interests, and the anticipated danger should have a proximate and direct nexus with the expression.

The freedom of expression cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural, or far-fetched.

Judgement

The decision in the case of Aseem Trivedi was made on March 17, 2015, by Bombay HC. The court saw that the arrest of Aseem Trivedi for sedition wasn’t right. The judges said that the right to speak your mind and express yourself, given by Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution isn’t total.

It should be kept safe from being used as a way to insult or criticize the government in words which could make people violent or lead to public chaos. The court stressed that keeping the state safe and maintaining public order are key thoughts when making laws, with a focus on punishing actions against the nation.

However, the court held that the charge of sedition was not applicable in this case as the cartoons did not incite violence or have the tendency to create public disorder.

The court also pointed out that if strong words are used to criticize the government’s actions with an aim of making them better or changing them through legal ways, this would not fall under sowing dissension. So, the court said that Aseem Trivedi shouldn’t have been charged with sedition under Section 124A of India’s law because it wasn’t right to arrest him for this reason.

Conclusion

The Aseem Trivedi Case, where he fought against The State of Maharashtra over his case helped bring up an important discussion on how much freedom we have to say what we think and make fun or criticize the government in our speech.

A political cartoonist named Aseem Trivedi was charged with rebellion, bad pictures and dishonoring national symbols for his drawings showing government corruption in India.

The decision made by the Bombay High Court on March 17, 2015 was a major part in forming how we think about free speech. The court said that speech and expression are very important, like in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

But they made clear this right is not perfect or complete. It should be used carefully, without causing violence or making chaos in public places.

The reasons that support the ban focused on worries about possibly harming important institutions, causing violence and making public peace more difficult.

However, the judge decided that Trivedi’s case didn’t fit sedition charge. This was because his cartoons did not cause violence or threaten public safety directly. The decision emphasized the need to find a balance between protecting our country’s interests and supporting free speech as part of democracy.

So, the important Aseem Trivedi Case shows a big step in talking about freedom of speech in India. It strengthens the idea that you can criticise government decisions even if it seems rude.

This is allowed in our constitution as long as it doesn’t start fights or cause public chaos. The case tells us that a good democracy needs understanding for different opinions and the careful use of free speech rights.

References

1. Section 66A has been struck down by Supreme Court’s Order dated 24th March, 2015 in the Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC. 1523. ↑
2. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. V Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 305) ↑
3. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Sulp. (2) 769. ↑
4. S. Rengarajan and Ors v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), 2 SCC 574 ↑
5. Nazir Khan vs. State of Delhi 2003 (8) SCC 461 ↑
6. Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214 ↑