Freedom Of Speech And Religion - Balancing Rights In A Diverse Democracy
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION: BALANCING
RIGHTS IN A DIVERSE DEMOCRACY
Simran Mishra, KIIT School of Law
ABSTRACT
Liberty, equality, and fraternity remain enshrined in India's Constitution as guiding principles of plural democracy. The freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom of religion under Article
25 remain two of its most important guarantees, two pillars which sustain
democratic diversity but usually exist in delicate tension. Debates relating to hate speech, artistic freedom, and religious sensitivity have once again triggered debates on how these rights could harmoniously be balanced in recent years. The essay explores constitutional and judicial approaches toward reconciling these freedoms, critically assessing landmark decisions such as Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, and other relevant precedents. It argues that while restrictions concerning public order and religious harmony are imperative, overbroad restrictions on free expression erode the democratic ethos of the Constitution. Inspired by the doctrine of constitutional morality and the principle of proportionality, the paper argues for a rights-based approach that invites tolerance, dialogue, and respect for diversity.
And finally, it concludes that a commitment to constitutional values in plural societies requires reiterating liberty as the foundation of peaceful coexistence and inclusive democracy. Keywords: Constitutional Values, Fundamental Rights, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Secularism, Democratic Pluralism, Judicial Interpretation, Constitutional Morality, Proportionality, Article 19, and Article 25.
1. Introduction
India's democratic structure is founded on the idea that freedom can exist alongside social plurality. Among these freedoms, the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to practice and profess religion freely, are core aspects of individual freedom and public participation. In a plural society like India, with various identities, cultures and religions, these rights not only empower individuals but also inform the constitutional goal of inclusive democracy. At the same time, the co-existence of these rights raises questions about limitations, accountability, and acceptable boundaries of expression. The goal of this essay is to explore how freedoms of speech and of religion co-exist and conflict in India's constitutional arrangement. While these rights are guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution, neither can be considered absolute.
Article 19(2) confers the authority on the State to impose reasonable limits on speech, which are made in the interests of public order, morality, and community harmony1. Similarly, Article 25 has a limit on the freedom of religion in the interest of public order, as well as health, morality, and other fundamental rights. Microsites, the co-existence of these rights raises questions about limits, accountability, and acceptable limits of expression. This essay aims to examine how freedoms of speech and of religion co-exist and conflict in the context of India’s constitutional arrangement. Although both these rights are specifically guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution, neither can be described as absolute.
Article 19(2) gives the State the power to impose reasonable limits on speech, for reasons of public order, morality, and harmony in the community, and Article 25 has a limit in the interest of public order, health, morality, and other fundamental rights, on the freedom of religion.
2. Constitutional Framework
The Indian Constitution safeguards constitutional values in a dynamic society like India by guaranteeing the fundamental rights to both, individuals and minority groups, while simultaneously allowing reasonable restrictions to balance out individual liberties with public order, morality, health, and social welfare. The frame work relies on a balance between
1 Dr. J.N.Pandey, The Constitutional Law Of India, 102-109 (Central Law Agency, 56th edn., 2019)
fundamental rights which is included in part III of constitution, Directive principles of State Policy included in Part IV and fundamental duties in part IVA of the Indian Constitution. The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right in India, as enshrined in the Constitution under Article 19(1)(a). It safeguards a person’s right to think, speak, and distribute ideas through any medium. However, the right guaranteed by the Constitution is not absolute: Article 19(2) allows the State to impose “reasonable restrictions” for a variety of reasons, including the security and integrity of India, public order, and morality, as well as for defamation, contempt of court, and incitement to an offence.
Representing both individual freedom and collective necessity in the constitutional balancing act, these limits have been placed explicit in the governing house of the laws in the nation. The right of expression, in the larger context of constitutional philosophy and as discussed in legal writings, becomes very important. 2 The state sometimes must intervene in the society to curtail, for instance, practices that are detrimental to public interests like national security, social harmony or economic growth provided these restrictions are applied according to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality thus making sure that the imposition of social goals does not infringe upon the core of freedoms. In fact, the Preamble of the Constitution strengthens the bond between freedom and collective peace by declaring "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.
" This relationship implies that free expression is not merely a political weapon3; it is also a constitutional value linked to human dignity and democratic participation. Judicial interpretation has reinforced this: courts have consistently held that any restriction on speech must serve a legitimate public interest and must be proportionate to the harm it seeks to prevent.
3 Areas of Conflict Between Speech and Religion
In a pluralistic democracy, the interaction between the rights of free speech and religion very often is a source of considerable tension and conflict. One loud voice in this entire debate comes from the side of the offended religious feelings when opinions and criticisms voiced freely touch their sensitivity. Apostasy and heresy, to name a couple, can be identified as the most 2 Mritunjay Kumar, “Striking Balance Between Fundamental Rights And Social Needs: A Critical Analysis” White Black Legal International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581- 8503
3 Tejaswini Kaushal, “A Bird's Eye View of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression in India”
Manupatra, (2023). serious offences against religion by the public, but believers do not necessarily take the public's right to express itself in a compelling way as a sign of their faith or identity being threatened4. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP (1957)5, where it upheld restrictions on speech “intended” to outrage religious feelings under Section 298 of the BNS (then 295A IPC), illustrating how the law itself becomes a site where speech and religion collide. On the other hand, complete religious freedom might limit the number of dissenting opinions and discussions, which might result in shortage of the right to practice and propagate a religion and the right to criticize or question religious norms. Another conflict area is social responsibility and communality accompanied by the concept of the right to free speech.
The notion of free speech expands so far that it envelopes unlimited expression, yet infers that the speaker may be totally indifferent to the consequences his words will have on the religious community or the public order. A commentator states that the main idea behind free speech is to allow dissent and controversies. However, it might be that every individual is given the responsibility to think about the impact of his words on others and on society at large6. Speakers or commentators whose views are regarded as provocative or incendiary may find their speech restricted by the state on the grounds of either public order or religious harmony, thus causing conflict between liberty and respect for religious diversity. Also, the advent of digital media together with fast content processing has increased the conflict.
The speech that is transmitted to multitudes can turn up the volume of insults directed at religious groups, who may then demand the intervention of either the government or the courts. Therefore, the quickness and the extent of contemporary communication combined create the following dilemma: a statement could not only offend a religion but also lead to violence or provoke public disorder. 7 Chief Justice Patanjali Shastri who gave the ruling in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras8 remarked that unrestrained political discourse and public discussions by the enlightened are very necessary for the proper working of democracy. Although wide-ranging liberties may unavoidably attract the danger of abuse, the authors of the Constitution mainly seemed to take
4 Jeffrey W. Howard, “Freedom of Speech” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy 2.2 (2024)
5 Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620
6 Balancing the intersections
Free Speech, Social Responsibility, and Press Freedom, (October 8, 2025, 2025, 10:30 Am), https://law.nirmauni.ac.in/balancing-the-intersections-free-speech-social-responsibility-and-pressfreedom-2/
7 Amit Singh “Conflict between Freedom of Expression and Religion in India” Vol 7. MDPI 3-10, (2018)
8 Romesh Thappar V. State Of Madras Air 1950 SC 124
the view that the risk of certain shortcomings in the enjoyment of liberty is still better than the cutting of its core benefits just in order to prevent possible abuses, which was the view taken by James Madison during the framing of the First Amendment.
4 Judicial Interpretation
The courts are instrumental in adjudicating the tension between the right to free speech and the right to practice one's religion by employing constitutional values like secularism, constitutional morality, and proportionality. The constitutional provisions, namely Articles 19(1)(a) and 25–28, that protect these rights do so subject to the constraints of “reasonable restrictions” that are associated with public order, morality, and health. Thus, the courts view them as interrelated rights and ensure that liberty of the individual does not disrupt the peace and become a cause of conflicts in a diverse society. In the context of free speech, the courts have begun to adopt more and more the global discourse surrounding free speech theory through reliance on the clear and present danger and incitement tests, which are considered the objective standards9.
The tests provide a cushion for the unpopular or critical views while at the same time permitting restrictions only when the speech creates a real and imminent danger to public order. This delicate balance has been maintained in the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP10, in which the Supreme Court endorsed restrictions on dispensation of speech directed at harming the feelings of a religious group. When considering the issue of religious freedom, the court draws on the Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices (ERP), which was first formulated in Shirur Mutt case11. This principle provides a means to differentiate between the fundamental tenets of religion and the more secular practices that are subject to regulation, thus enabling the state to act in the interest of reformation and equality.
The ERP principle has been growing since then and culminated in the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sabarimala where the Court adopted values such as dignity and gender justice in the Constitution. With regards to hate speech, the courts are doing an interpretation of statutes like Sections 196 and 299 of the BNS that is focused on the concept of mens rea, that such laws often get misused. In the Padmaavat film case, the Supreme Court of India affirmed creative freedom, overturning state-imposed bans and stating
9 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
10 Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620
11 Shirur Mutt v. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, AIR 1954 SC 282
that general apprehension of disorder by pressure groups is not sufficient grounds for censorship12.
5. The Role of constitutional Morality
Constitutional morality plays a major role as a guiding principle in a democratic society with varied views, leading the State and citizens to prioritize core values of the constitution—like equality, liberty, dignity, and justice—over norms that might discriminate due to social or religious reasons. In this way, it makes sure that individual freedom is exercised in a way that is not only peaceful but also in line with the government and the constitution's aim of achieving harmony in society. In the case of freedom of speech, constitutional morality puts a stamp of approval on the dissent and open talk which are the very things the democratic life is made of. It grants the citizen the right to challenge the power, criticize the government’s policies, and participate in discussions that matter to him without being interrupted unnecessarily.
At the same time, the principle is applied to “reasonable restrictions,” so to speak, thus guaranteeing that the restrictions imposed on the ground of public order, morality, or national security are precise, not vague, and do not bar the opportunities for legitimate expression. One can see that the Court's leaning on constitutional morality was displayed in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)13 when the Court invalidated Section 66A of the IT Act as being vague, overbroad and at odds with the rule of free speech enshrined in the constitution. Concerning freedom of religion, constitutional morality, on the one hand, restricts the State's involvement in religious matters to that of an equal-handed referee and, on the other hand, insists on the State's active role in the equal treatment of all faith communities.
It gives the courts the power to question religious or traditional practices that violate basic rights, especially those that treat people unequally or deny them their basic dignity. This method was particularly used in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)14, where the practice of instant triple talaq was declared unconstitutional. The court ruled that 12 Amit Singh “Conflict between Freedom of Expression and Religion in India” Vol 7. MDPI 3-10, (2018)
13 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
14 Shayara Bano v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4609
religious practices must comply with constitutional principles if they violate gender justice or individual rights. To put it differently, constitutional morality is the connecting factor between individual freedom and the common good of society. It permits the judiciary to integrate the rights of free expression and free practice of religion within the more comprehensive constitutional framework of justice, equality, and coexistence of different cultures.
6 Contemporary Challenges and Global View
Overly contemporary democracies have raised the issue of defining limits between freedom of speech and religion still existing on their merits and the fact that in the digital era, the influence of words and actions is significantly amplified. The protection of individual liberties then comes to a question of public order, national security, and social unity. These problems have become increasingly complicated in the world and India owing to the above-mentioned reasons of political polarization, religious intolerance and, lastly, the digital companies' power.
15 The following are the Most Important Issues in today’s time: i) Balancing Individual Rights and Collective Interests: The modern government is obliged to impose restraining measures on certain speech including violent, hateful, or national security threatening ones, while at the same time providing a safe place for criticism, dissent, and even controversial and offensive views. This trimming of the speech tree is really becoming a hard task in multicultural societies where the religious provocation though non-verbal or subtle can easily escalate to dialogues of war. ii) Influence of Social Media and the Digital Sphere: The instantaneous spread of digital content has added salt to the old wounds of misinformation, cyberbullying, online radicalization, and communal tensions.
The online communication is at such a speed and with such a wide audience that regulating the harmful speech without curtailing the legitimate expression is getting more and more difficult. 15 “Religious Freedom and Free Speech in a Multicultural World”, Politics and Rights Review, March 24,2024 iii) Diversity of Legal and Cultural Approaches: The democratic countries vary highly in the ways they regulate the speech that is considered harmful or offensive. For example, Germany has a very strict legal system imposing heavy sanctions on hate speech and denial of the Holocaust, and meanwhile, the USA gives a wide birth to such unpleasant speech and also to the very offensive speech, being thus very much in favor of the concept of “marketplace of ideas”.
iv) Hate Speech and the Limits of Free Expression: One of the most debated issues in the international arena is the definition and regulation of hate speech. On the one hand, states have the responsibility to put an end to the communication that is aimed at groups with low social status or that triggers discrimination, while on the other hand, they should not restrict theatrical creativity, religious criticism, satire or academic discourse too much. v) Rise of Misinformation and Disinformation: The dissemination of untruthful information—particularly during elections, public health emergencies, or community clashes—constitutes a very serious impediment to the process of making democratic decisions. It is necessary for democracies to come up with control mechanisms that maintain the values of openness and truthfulness while not imposing harsh limitations on the freedom of expression.
In a diverse democracy, the balancing of rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a very complicated undertaking since in many instances the former two rights clearly clash. A system that is both just and practical will necessitate limits that are not only delineated by laws in a lucid manner but also implemented rarely thus being in line with a given concern such as preventing harm, violence, or discrimination which is going to be very strict. The individual right is to be assured while the serenity in society is to be maintained. i) International Human Rights Frameworks The basic principles for these freedoms are laid down by global human rights documents. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) cover the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression.
Even so, the ICCPR, at the same time, gives the governments the power to impose limitations on the manner in which people express their religion or beliefs but only when it is in the interest of public safety, order, health, morals, or to protect the rights of others. It also instructs the countries to prohibit the expression which intentionally incites hatred or violence based on race, religion, or nationality. ii) Comparative National Approaches Various countries come up with different solutions for the same problem. The United States offers a very solid protection of the speech under the First Amendment that does not only cover speech that is not offensive or popular opinions but is even allowed to be made offensive or unpopular and thus limits speech only when it leads to immediate violence or poses a very serious nature.
On the other hand, Germany and France are among countries that have very strict rules against hate speech, which might be a reason why the authorities want to protect human dignity, avoid discrimination, and keep the peace in society. The Constitution of India guarantees both liberties but permits “reasonable restrictions” in the name of public order, morality, and national security. In a pluralistic society, Indian courts often have to weigh the right to free speech against the safeguarding of religious sentiments. A proper balance can only be struck through the cooperation of the government, the legal system, and society at large by way of awareness, clear regulations, and above all, mutual respect. It is only in this manner that democracies will be able to safeguard individual rights and, at the same time, promote the peaceful cohabitation of different cultural groups.
7. Analysis
for achieving a balanced Framework: Constitutional morality is the foundation that supports and uplifts all the rights in a democratic country, thus allowing the coexistence of freedoms of speech and religion. As an ethical principle that derives its authority from the Constitution, it helps the interpretation and enforcement of rights in such a way that no group can take over the others and the democratic values are not compromised. It will be the case that, by taking the side of the minority, constitutional morality will not allow the fundamental rights—rights of expression and faith in particular—to be ignored even when they are in conflict with the society or religion that is considered the norm.
Another aspect of the balanced framework is that it shall put inclusion as the highest priority. Then, constitutional morality will be the tool to drive the change by supporting the dignity and rights of the marginalized and making it a point that the constitutional mandates would not be affected by the social biases. The Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)16 case is an excellent illustration of this as the Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality by arguing from the viewpoint of the constitutional principles of dignity and equality rather than being guided by the morality of the majority. The way of thinking is quite clear that public morality has a root in individual character and, at the same time, it is the public that is being liberated.
Moreover, constitutional morality not only restricts State action and public institutions but also commands them, thus making the governance grounded in justice, fairness, and nonarbitrariness. The principle-based approach is helpful in keeping the neutral ground where the issues of incitement to hatred and religious sensitivities are taking place and, at the same time, it is contributing to the establishment of a legal framework which is less conflictual and more harmonised. More importantly, it ensures that any encroachment on either of the rights by the State, be it freedom of expression or freedom of religion, will be of a reasonable nature, welljustified, and aligned with the principles of the Constitution. Lastly, constitutional morality promotes the legal evolution that corresponds to the modernday challenges.
It makes the Constitution operate as a living document and thus, it is more supportive of reforms which bring about equality, social justice, and pluralism. This quality of being adaptable is very important for preserving the equilibrium between conflicting rights in the society which is becoming more and more varied and dynamic. All these factors combined demonstrate the role of constitutional morality as the philosophical background for the delicate and long-lasting balance between the right to speak freely and the right to practice one's religion.
8. Conclusion
In the end, the issue that all diverse democracies face is not just the management of the conflicts between free speech and freedom of religion but their conversion into opportunities for dialogue and tolerance. No rights can thrive apart from a society which upholds both liberty and responsibility. Thus, the actual challenge is creating a milieu where disputation is not seen
16 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321.
as a threat to one's dignity and where law, ethics, and public reason cooperatively work to make freedom a bridge rather than a barrier to peaceful coexistence.