Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 AUGUST 2017

Debating Freedom Of Press And Expression

Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Contributor
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners

Hammurabi & Solomon Partners

With over 100 members in India, Hammurabi & Solomon Partners (H&SP) is the pioneer in the realm of...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hammurabi & Solomon Partners

The recent decision of the central government to ban NDTV India has raised concerns regarding the rights of free press in India.

IndiaGovernment, Public Sector

The recent decision of the central government to ban NDTV India has raised concerns regarding the rights of free press in India. Mostly, people are using the 'freedom of speech & expression' interchangeably with the rights of a free press.

But are both one and the same?

The constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all its citizens under Article 19, which deals with protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. Clause (1) (a) of Article 19 states, "All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression." Article 19(1) (a) draws inspiration from the first amendment to the United States constitution, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

See more popular content from

Article

Punjab And Haryana High Court Strikes Down JAO - FAO Retrospective Amendment As Unconstitutional

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) in Jyoti Sareen vs. UOI & Others (CWP No. 15791-2024 (O&M)) (Order) held the retrospective amendments carried out vide the Finance Act, 2026, with respect to the powers of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a reopening notice under section 148 (Reopening Notice) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), as unconstitutional, being violative of the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Acquisition By An FOCC Of An Indian Company: Pricing Conditions For Resident And Non-resident Shareholders

A FOCC refers to an Indian entity that has received foreign investment and is ultimately owned or controlled by persons resident outside India. Although incorporated in India under the Companies Act, such entities are treated differently from domestically owned and controlled Indian companies for the purposes of foreign investment regulation and downstream investment structuring. Consequently, an FOCC, despite being an Indian incorporated entity, is subject to regulatory conditions applicable to foreign investment while undertaking investments into other Indian entities.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
LegaLogic
LegaLogic
Article

From Consent To Accountability: Japan’s 2026 APPI Amendment Bill And The New Data Strategy For AI-Driven Businesses

AI regulation does not always arrive in the form of a dedicated AI statute. More often, it enters through privacy law. On April 7, 2026, the Japanese Cabinet approved a bill to amend Japan’s Act on the Protection of Personal Information (“APPI”). The Diet passed the amendment on July 10, 2026, and it was promulgated on July 17, 2026 as Act No. 56 of 2026; the amendment is now enacted but not yet in force, with its main provisions taking effect on a date to be fixed by Cabinet order no later than mid-2028.
IndiaPrivacy
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

Telegram Ban In India – The Rise Of Digital Sovereignty

The Delhi High Court's landmark ruling in Telegram FZ LLC v. Union of India addresses whether Section 69A of the IT Act permits the government to block an entire platform rather than specific content. Following the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak scandal, where fraudulent channels circulated fake exam papers affecting millions of aspirants, the court upheld the Centre's power to impose a platform-wide ban on Telegram, sparking intense debate about the boundaries between examination integrity and digital censorship.
IndiaMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

Consumer Law Updates

The Supreme Court has delivered a pivotal judgment on banking liability under consumer protection law, examining whether banks can be held liable for deficiency in service when they fail to present deposited cheques within their validity period. This case arose from civil appeals filed by Canara Bank challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's ruling that found the bank guilty of service deficiency.
IndiaConsumer Protection
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Article

The Law Of Informational Privacy And The Right To Be Forgotten

The digital age has transformed how personal information persists online, creating lasting associations between individuals and past events that would have once faded from public memory. When judicial records, news articles, and other content remain permanently searchable, they can continue to affect lives long after cases are resolved or circumstances have changed. This raises fundamental questions about whether Indian constitutional law recognizes a right to be forgotten and how courts should balance indi
GlobalPrivacy
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners
Hammurabi & Solomon Partners