News Article

In a significant display of international judicial diplomacy, the Supreme Court of India recently hosted chief justices and senior judges from several nations, who witnessed court proceedings and lauded the depth, dynamism, and global influence of Indian jurisprudence. The historic occasion, coinciding with India's Constitution Day celebrations, underscored the nation's growing stature as a beacon of constitutionalism and a source of legal precedent for judiciaries across the globe.

The high-level delegation, which joined the bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, included Chief Justice Lyonpo Norbu Tshering of Bhutan, Chief Justice Martha Koome of Kenya, Chief Justice Rehana Bibi Mungly-Gulbul of Mauritius, Chief Justice Padman Surasena of Sri Lanka, and Justice Sapna Pradhan Malla of the Nepal Supreme Court. Their presence was warmly welcomed by CJI Surya Kant as a “historic occasion,” a sentiment echoed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on behalf of the Government of India.

The visit served not only as a symbol of goodwill but also as a substantive affirmation of the Indian judiciary's impact. The visiting dignitaries were effusive in their praise, highlighting how Indian case law and constitutional principles serve as a guiding force within their own legal systems.

A Beacon for Global Jurisprudence

The commendations from the visiting justices provided a powerful testament to the soft power wielded by the Indian Supreme Court. Chief Justice Martha Koome of Kenya stated unequivocally that Kenyan courts “look up to the jurisdiction of India” and regularly follow the Supreme Court's precedents. Conveying greetings from her nation, she expressed hope for continued cooperation “to uphold the rule of law.”

Similarly, the Chief Justice of Mauritius, Rehana Bibi Mungly-Gulbul, remarked that Indian jurisprudence has been a “guiding force” for their courts. The deep ties were further emphasized by the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, who described the shared legal heritage between the two nations, noting they have “the same traditions, same legal systems, same pattern, same set of submissions.”

This international recognition is a direct result of the Indian Supreme Court's decades-long effort to interpret and protect a living constitution. The judiciary's role as a protector of fundamental rights and its innovative approach to public interest litigation have created a rich body of law that resonates with other constitutional democracies, particularly in the Global South.

The Living Constitution: A Case Study in Freedom of Speech

The praise for India's legal framework is best understood by examining the evolution of specific constitutional provisions. The jurisprudence surrounding Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, offers a compelling case study of how the judiciary has meticulously balanced a fundamental right against societal interests, thereby shaping the contours of Indian democracy.

The Constitution, as Chief Justice of Bhutan Lyonpo Norbu Tshering observed, is "the best," with its purpose being to "serve humanity." He noted its dynamic nature, evidenced by 106 amendments. This dynamism is vividly reflected in the judicial interpretation of free speech.

Initially, the Supreme Court established that the freedom of the press was implicit in Article 19(1)(a). In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Court invalidated a ban on a newspaper's circulation, holding that the right to propagate ideas is meaningless without the right to circulate them. This foundational principle was reinforced in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1962), where the Court struck down government regulations on page numbers and pricing, clarifying that business interests could not be a ground to restrict this fundamental right under the "reasonable restrictions" clause of Article 19(2).

Expanding the Horizons of Expression

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has progressively expanded the ambit of "speech and expression" far beyond the printed word, adapting to the changing needs of a vibrant democracy.

1. The Right to Silence and Dissent: In a landmark decision in Bijoy Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala (1986), the Court protected the right of three schoolchildren, who were Jehovah's Witnesses, to refrain from singing the national anthem on grounds of religious belief. The judgment famously held that Article 19(1)(a) also includes the right to silence, establishing that compelled speech is anathema to the freedom of expression.

2. From Commerce to Information: While initially hesitant to grant constitutional protection to commercial speech, viewing it as a business activity ( Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India , 1960), the Court later reversed its stance. In Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. , commercial speech was recognized as a part of the freedom of speech, essential for the public to receive information and make informed choices. This paved the way for recognizing the citizen's "right to know," a principle that culminated in the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. Upholding Voter Rights: The Court has also interpreted the right to expression as a cornerstone of electoral democracy. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India , it affirmed the voter's fundamental right to know the background of electoral candidates, including their criminal records, assets, and educational qualifications. It even recognized the "right to negative voting" as a form of expression, allowing voters to register disapproval.

4. Digital Transformation and Modern Challenges: The praise from the senior judge of Nepal for the "exciting" pace of judicial reforms and the digital transformation of India's justice system is particularly relevant. The jurisprudence on free speech is now grappling with the complexities of the digital age, from online content regulation to data privacy. The ongoing dialogue in Indian courts about intermediary liability, misinformation, and online dissent continues the tradition of adapting fundamental principles to new realities.

A Profound Privilege and a Shared Future

The visit of the foreign dignitaries was more than a ceremonial event; it was a reaffirmation of a shared commitment to the rule of law and constitutional values. As the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka described it, attending the event was a “profound privilege.”

For the Indian legal community, this international acknowledgment serves as both an honour and a responsibility. It highlights the judiciary's crucial role in not only safeguarding the rights of its own citizens but also in contributing to a global dialogue on law, justice, and human rights. The robust, nuanced, and ever-evolving jurisprudence, exemplified by the interpretation of free speech, remains India's most significant legal export and a cornerstone of its democratic identity.