mention the restraints on the freedom of speech and expression
Answers
The few cases of exception in the 'Freedom of Expression' given to Indians by the Constitution are in the clause 2 of article 19 i.e.
Article 19(2):
"Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the 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."
Now explaining the heads:
1. Sovereignty and Integrity of India. This is aimed to prohibit anyone from making the statements that challenge the integrity and sovereignty of India.
2. Security of the State. All the utterances intended to endanger the security of the State by crimes of violence intended to overthrow the government, waging of war and rebellion against the government, external aggression or war, etc., may be restrained in the interest of the security of the State.
3. Friendly relations with foreign States. If your words/speech tends to jeopardise the friendly relations of India with other State.
4. Public Order. The expression 'public order' connotes the sense of public peace, safety and tranquillity.
5. Decency or Morality. However, we know that the standard of morality varies from time to time and from place to place, person to person.
6. Contempt of Court. (Self-explanatory)
7. Defamation. Prevents any person from making any statement that injures the reputation of another. Also, Defamation is criminalized.
8. Incitement to an offence. It prohibits a person from making any statement that incites people to commit offence. Classic example is the cases against BJP leaders for Babri incident and cases against Raj Thackeray for his anti-North Indians speech.
Some of these restrictions are dependent on the interpretation of the incident/words. Hence, we more often see controversies and desperate Limelight Hoggers.
Edit:
Edited the intro. Added the Article 19(2) part for reference.
Note: Article 19(1)(a) as mentioned above says:
(1) All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression;...
hope you will mark my answer as brainlist answer
Some speeches might be offensive to a specific gathering, particularly one that is supported by the overwhelming society or the administration. This offensive speech might be genuinely spoken in a longing to achieve reality. In either case, offending this public is seen as a more prominent wrong than confining free speech.
Some speech is disdainful or seems derisive or hateful. Either type of this speech might be earnestly talked as a piece of a craving to achieve reality. Notwithstanding, speech that degrades, affronts or maligns individuals is sometimes thought of as inexpiable. Since such speeches hurts people, this is viewed as a justifiable reason to preclude it. This is different from offensive speech since offensive speech isn't derisive in any case.
Free speech is a twofold edged sword in light of the fact that alongside free speech comes hate speech, two ideas that can frequently be hard to recognize from each other. The right to speak freely enables us to express our feelings, regardless of how questionable they may be, which many contend is one of the essential necessities in a majority rules system which is also known as democracy.