The law on speech, violence, and the link between the two is well settled in India. In , the Supreme Court made it clear that, consistent with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the correct standard for criminalising speech was that of incitement to violence. Not advocacy; not violent thoughts; but incitement. The judgment in the Shreya Singhal case articulated an evolving latent standard in Indian free speech law, that had been expressed in various forms since the judgment in 1960: the requirement of close proximity between a speech and an unlawful act, summed up through phrases such as a “spark in a powder keg” ().
While it may appear tedious to recount uncontroversial Supreme Court jurisprudence – and indeed, it is tedious for the person doing the recounting – the exercise is made necessary by the fact that from time to time, courts seem either unaware of…
View original post 1,258 more words
rothinzil 