Supreme Court Review 2025: Testing the limits of free speech

The Supreme Court’s decisions in 2025 reflect a growing judicial engagement with the contours and constraints of free expression within a constitutional democracy. Across several high-profile cases, the Court explored how dissent is treated, the duty of state institutions to uphold expression and the evolving standards for acceptable critique, especially in a digital context.

Restraint in criminal cases

In Jaideep Bose v M/s Bid and Hammer Auctioneers Pvt Ltd, the Court examined whether editors could face criminal defamation charges for content published by their media organisation. While the High Court had upheld the charges in part, the Supreme Court ruled that pursuing prosecution would not be justified without specific, individualised allegations. Justice R. Mahadevan stressed the importance of maintaining a fair balance between editorial accountability and safeguarding the democratic role of the press, reaffirming that journalism serves a critical function in a free society.

In Imran Pratapgarhi v State of Gujarat, the Court emphasised the link between freedom of expression and the procedural safeguards afforded under criminal law. It observed that where speech-related offences are concerned, a preliminary inquiry may be necessary before the registration of an FIR. This procedural protection aims to prevent undue criminalisation under the exceptions to Article 19(1)(a). The Court recognised that political statements—even critical ones, such as referring to the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir as a ‘Black Day’—should be viewed as part of legitimate democratic engagement rather than being grounds for criminal prosecution.

Reasoned criticism of judicial activity is protected

In Wikimedia Foundation v ANI Media Pvt Ltd, the Supreme Court set aside a takedown order issued by the Delhi High Court. The High Court Bench had directed Wikimedia to remove an adverse comment on a court order in a Wikipedia page about the ongoing legal proceedings between the two organisations. The Supreme Court advised caution in issuing interim censorship orders, especially on digital platforms, emphasising that even temporary restrictions could lead to prolonged consequences given the reach and permanence of online content. The Court reiterated the need for proportionality and detailed reasoning when imposing such restrictions, particularly on globally accessible platforms. 

A similar theme emerged in Vishal Tiwari v Union of India, where the Court reviewed whether a Member of Parliament’s remarks about judicial decisions amounted to criminal contempt. The Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, underscoring that informed and reasoned criticism of court judgements is protected by the Constitution. It noted that the judiciary’s credibility should rest on the robustness of its reasoning rather than the suppression of critical perspectives.

Institutional protection

While the Court has generally upheld expressive freedoms, it has also drawn boundaries where speech appears to attack judicial authority without substantiation. In a case involving journalist Ajay Shukla, the Court ordered the removal of a video that it found potentially damaging to the judiciary’s reputation. This reflects a nuanced judicial approach: the Court supports informed critique but acts decisively when expression is perceived as undermining the legitimacy of public institutions without factual basis.

These cases reveal the fine line between promoting transparency in public discourse and protecting the dignity of constitutional bodies. The judiciary is increasingly called upon to arbitrate these tensions, especially in an era where digital platforms can rapidly amplify unverified or inflammatory content.

In defence of a journalist

In August 2025, the Supreme Court extended interim protection to journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, who had been charged under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for reporting on a sensitive security matter in Assam. The Court’s intervention reflected growing concern over the use of criminal law to intimidate or silence the press. It stressed that prosecution must not be misused as a tool for harassment, particularly in cases involving reporting that serves the public interest.

Chilling effect

The Court also addressed concerns that procedural mechanisms—such as repeated FIRs or stringent bail conditions—can suppress speech in practice, even without a conviction. In proceedings involving content creator Ranveer Allahabadia, it was argued by his counsel that multiple overlapping legal cases meant abuse of the legal process. The Court barred registration of new FIRs against him, while refusing to merge the existing ones.   Though not declared unlawful, the cumulative effect of such restrictions was acknowledged by the Court in a previous case as potentially having a chilling effect on expression. Yet, the expanded proceedings involving other comedians saw the Court propose guidelines to regulate online content. Observers have viewed this proposal with scepticism. 

In the case of Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s comments on Operation Sindoor, the Court granted bail to the academic but did not provide a definitive ruling on whether his public comments constituted a criminal offence. However, it directed Mahmudabad to surrender his passport, avoid public comment on the attacks or Operation Sindoor and constituted a three-member Special Investigation Team of senior police officers purportedly to unravel the “linguistic complexity” of Mahmudabad’s Facebook post. The Court’s lack of reasoning was criticised. 

These instances point to a broader trend where the legal process itself, rather than judicial outcomes, may exert a constraining influence on free speech.

Artistic freedom 

In a matter concerning the release of Kamal Haasan’s film Thug Life, the Court thwarted  attempts by private groups in Karnataka to obstruct screenings of content that had already been cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification. The protests were in response to Haasan’s comment—at an audio launch of the film—that the Kannada language “was born out of Tamil”, and his refusal to apologise for the remark. 

The Court emphasised that creative expression is constitutionally protected and that the State has a duty to prevent coercion or intimidation by non-state actors. It made clear that public outrage or pressure cannot override the legal rights of filmmakers and content creators whose work meets existing statutory standards.

A shift in jurisprudential focus

Throughout 2025, the Supreme Court grappled with challenges surrounding freedom of speech, particularly as digital media and new legal frameworks reshape public discourse. Rather than adopting an absolutist approach, the Court focused on broader structural elements—ranging from law enforcement procedures to institutional credibility—that determine how expression is exercised or restricted.

A notable trend this year was the emphasis on procedural safeguards, including requirements for preliminary inquiries before criminal proceedings involving speech. This reflects a maturing jurisprudence aimed at reinforcing constitutional protections against arbitrary State action. Still, the enduring challenge remains: how to balance institutional sensitivities with the fundamental need for open democratic dialogue.

The Court’s evolving body of rulings suggests that protecting free expression in all its dimensions will require an approach grounded in transparency, proportionality and an unwavering commitment to constitutional values.