hmm.. this is interesting. Someone once quoted that India is the only ex-Commonwealth country (including Canada AND the UK itself) that has the most iron clad constitutional guarantees on free speech.
I'm not sure how accurate that is though - India has on occasion banned books (like Salman Rushdie's work) to prevent potential civil unrest. But there are similar precedents in the USA.
The Indian Penal Code, framed by the British in colonial times, contains a number of laws that make giving offence a crime, and throttle free speech. For example, there’s Section 295 (a), which makes it a non-bailable offence to “outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” There’s Section 153 (a), which seeks to punish “any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities”. There’s Section 124 (a), which prescribes life imprisonment for anyone who “by words or expression of any kind brings or attempts to bring or provoke a feeling of hatred, contempt or disaffection towards government”—something that any critic of any government could be accused of.
The constitution, framed not by the British but by the freedom fighters who got us independence, cops out when it comes to free speech. While Article 19 (1) (a) pays lip service to it, Article 19 (2) lays out “reasonable restrictions” such as when it applies to matters such as “public order” and “decency or morality”, matters which are, of course, open to interpretation. I’d love it if we had something like the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which contains no such caveats—but sadly, we don’t.
I'm not sure how accurate that is though - India has on occasion banned books (like Salman Rushdie's work) to prevent potential civil unrest. But there are similar precedents in the USA.