Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The third post, involving vulgar and abusive remarks against the Chief Minister, may at best be construed as defamation. Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008, which penalizes obscene material in electronic form, is not applicable, as the remarks, though abusive, are not obscene.

20. Constitutionally, all three posts fall within the protection of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Restrictions under Article 19(2) apply only in narrow circumstances such as defamation, incitement to violence, or imminent threat to public order. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), and Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) has consistently affirmed the high level of protection granted to political expression in a democracy.

iii. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 upheld criminal defamation but stressed the requirement of false factual imputations and actual reputational injury, distinguishing it from political criticism. iv. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 mandated FIR registration only for cognizable offences; for non- cognizable offences such as defamation, preliminary enquiry or judicial sanction is required.

v. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 cautioned against mechanical arrests and stressed proportionality in criminal process.