Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that "Article 19 can't prevail over Article 21" while hearing cases involving comedians accused of making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities, emphasizing that the right to dignity cannot be compromised in the name of free speech. 

• The Supreme Court made this observation in consolidated matters including M/s SMA Cure Foundation v. Union of India & Others (2025) and related petitions. 

What was the Background of M/s SMA Cure Foundation v. Union of India & Others (2025) Case ? 

• The case originated from complaints against renowned comediana for making insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities. 
• M/s SMA Cure Foundation filed a petition accusing the comedians of mocking persons with disabilities (PwDs) during their performances. 
• The controversy emerged from the "India's Got Latent" show, leading to multiple FIRs being lodged against the comedians and related YouTubers. 
• The two YouTubers filed separate petitions seeking clubbing of FIRs lodged against them in connection with the controversy. 
• The Court had previously described some of the content as "dirty, perverted" and expressed concerns about regulating obscene content on social media platforms. 
• The case raised fundamental questions about the balance between free speech and dignity of vulnerable sections of society. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that "Article 19 can't overpower Article 21. Article 21 must prevail if any competition takes place." 
• The Court stressed that the right to dignity emanates from Article 21 and cannot be compromised for the sake of free speech under Article 19. 
• Justice Kant observed that the Court was inviting all stakeholders for an "open debate" on guidelines to prevent abuse of free speech while maintaining constitutional balance. 
• The Court noted that "Individual misconducts, which are under scrutiny, will continue to be examined" and described the Foundation's concerns as raising a "serious issue." 
• The bench emphasized that any guidelines must be "in conformity with constitutional principles" and should comprise both freedom and duties. 
• The Court warned that the framework being developed should not be misused by anyone in future, stating "What we are doing is for posterity." 
• The Court mandated personal appearance of the comedians, warning that their absence would be viewed seriously. 

What is Article 19 of the Constitution? 

About: 

• Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to all citizens, including the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). 
• The Article provides that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonable restrictions. 
• Article 19(2) empowers the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, 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. 
• The freedom is not absolute and can be regulated by law, but any restriction must satisfy the test of reasonableness.

Landmark Cases: 

• Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950): 
  • First case to interpret Article 19(1)(a) and established that pre-censorship of newspapers violated freedom of speech. 
  • The Court held that freedom of speech is the foundation of democratic government and cannot be curtailed except under Article 19(2).
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): 
  • Established the "procedure established by law" must be fair, just, and reasonable. 
  • Connected with Article 19 and Article 21, showing they are not mutually exclusive but complementary. 
• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): 
  • It is held that prior restraint on speech is presumptively unconstitutional. 
  • Established that the remedy for bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): 
  • Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. 
  • Reinforced that online speech enjoys the same constitutional protection as offline speech.

What is Article 21 of the Constitution?

About:  

• Article 21 provides that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." 
• The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity as an integral part of the right to life. 
• The right to dignity has been recognized as a fundamental aspect of Article 21 in numerous judgments. 
• The Court has held that dignity is the core of human rights and forms the foundation of many other fundamental rights. 
• Article 21 has been interpreted to include various rights such as right to privacy, right to reputation, right to livelihood, and right to live in a pollution-free environment. 
• The provision applies to all persons (not just citizens) and cannot be suspended even during emergency.

Landmark Cases: 

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): 
  • Initially gave a narrow interpretation to Article 21, limited to physical detention. 
  • Later overruled by Maneka Gandhi case for broader interpretation.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): 
  • Revolutionary judgment that expanded Article 21 to include right to live with dignity. 
  • Established that "life" means more than mere animal existence and includes all facets that make life meaningful.
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi (1981): 
  • Further expanded Article 21 to include right to live with human dignity. 
  • It is held that right to life includes right to live with basic human dignity.
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): 
  • Established that right to livelihood is part of right to life under Article 21. 
  • "No person can live without means of living, that is, means of livelihood."
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): 
  • Recognized workplace sexual harassment as violation of Article 21. 
  • Established that right to life includes right to live with dignity, especially for women.