The Hindu Editorial Analysis
6 June 2025
The university versus constitutionally protected speech
(Source – The Hindu, National Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS 2: Fundamental Rights – Article 19 | Governance – University Autonomy | GS 4: Ethics in Public Institutions
Context
- Amid increasing university restrictions on faculty expression, questions arise over whether freedom of speech in universities is bound by constitutional protections or institutional regulations.
- This editorial draws from legal traditions, case law, and constitutional principles to argue that no institution, public or private, can curtail the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a).
Introduction
“Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely…” — John Milton.
Freedom of speech is not just a legal guarantee, but the foundation of democratic thought, dissent, and scholarship. When universities—expected to be bastions of truth—suppress speech, they erode not only rights but also the pursuit of knowledge.
Historical and Legal Evolution of Free Speech
1. British Colonial Origins
- Censorship and licensing laws controlled printing in colonial India.
- After independence, India adopted Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression.
2. U.S. Influence and India’s First Amendment
- The U.S. First Amendment categorically states: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
- In India, reasonable restrictions were allowed under Article 19(2), including sovereignty, morality, and public order.
University Speech: Bound or Free?
1. Universities as Public Institutions
- Public universities are subject to constitutional accountability.
- In Dr. Jamshed Jehangir vs. SRM University (2015), the SC held that private universities too perform public functions, hence are subject to constitutional scrutiny.
2. The Problem of Prior Censorship
- Many institutions require approval before faculty express views publicly.
- This resembles colonial licensing laws and infringes academic freedom.
3. Viewpoint Discrimination Is Undemocratic
- Suppressing one’s views because they challenge state or institutional policies defeats the democratic ethos of universities.
- As per the U.S. ruling in Texas v. Johnson (1989): “The government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive.”
The Limits and Justifications of Restrictions
1. Reasonable Restrictions Are Specific and Exhaustive
- Only permissible if tied to grounds in Article 19(2): public order, morality, national security, etc.
- Any blanket institutional rule requiring silence or loyalty violates proportionality, as reaffirmed in Puttaswamy Judgment (2017).
2. Academic Freedom and Dissent
- Ideas, even controversial ones, are the currency of academia.
- Teachers and scholars must be allowed to express criticism, especially in areas of public importance like politics, governance, or human rights.
Expression as a Tool to Reach Truth
- Freedom of expression enables the search for truth, famously echoed by Milton and J.S. Mill.
- It allows for competition of ideas, necessary for intellectual progress.
Conclusion
Silencing scholars undermines both the Constitution and the university’s own mission.
Article 19(1)(a) belongs to every citizen—including every professor and student. No institution can demand blind obedience. The remedy to offensive speech is more speech, not enforced silence.
In a democracy, truth is best served not by control, but by dialogue.