The Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) in 1948 was a landmark articulation1 of the ideal relationship between the citizen and the state. A key article of that declaration was on the freedom of speech, and the right “...to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. It was a pioneering multi-lateral global collaboration, at a time when the embers of WWII were still burning. That winter in Paris, 50 countries in the UN General Assembly voted to adopt the UDHR2. Among them, there were two that would go on to become the world’s largest and most famous democracies. The country of mybirth - India, and the country I call home - America.
The United States is unique among modern states in its explicit Constitutional guarantee of free speech, articulated over two hundred years prior to UDHR. It has been as close to an absolute right as possible - limited only by an “imminent lawless action” test3 . During the path to a more perfect union, the scope of expression has broadened from spoken and written speech. In fact, a recent SCOTUS opinion has ruled that political donations by corporations are a form of expression. While the merits of this can be debated, the American experience of free speech has withstood the test of time with champions from both sides of the political spectrum. These rights have historically been extended not only to American citizens, but also to foreigners seeking relief4 from government infringement.
The Constitution of India was adopted in 1949, just a year after UDHR. It is perhaps no mere coincidence that both documents use Article 195 to enumerate the Right to Freedom of Expression. At least one member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet in free India had participated and participated in the development of the UDHR. For a new country emerging from colonization with a large illiterate and impoverished population, the inclusion of speech rights as a key ingredient of the theory of India was inspiring. However, in contrast to the near-absolute American system, explicit conditions attached to free speech made its practice very different in India. There are eight broad conditions, none of which are fully specified, allowing for selective interpretation. These are often the basis for the executive branch to infringe upon free expression. An artist6 is prosecuted for interpreting a religious figure in a way considered “indecent”. A student is incarcerated7 for speaking words that are perceived to be against the “Sovereignty and Integrity” of India. Further, the first clause in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution extends the freedom of speech explicitly to Indian citizens. Foreigners are implicitly excluded, so are foreign communication platforms8 operating in India. This is problematic for a country with the world’s largest diasporic population.
As both countries embraced muscular nationalism in the last decade, free speech rights have suffered. While the extent and specifics differ between India and the US, the State is the aggressor in both. The robust protections for foreigners in the
United States are now under duress due to executive action9. The US Department of Homeland Security is now able to deny immigration benefits to foreigners based on social media activity it deems to be “...any indications of being hostile to American…culture”. In another case, the US government invoked a rarely used law to deport an academician who was a legal permanent resident. While criminal offences have always been valid grounds for deportations, the individual in question had not committed a crime. These examples illustrate how the freedoms guaranteed to foreigners through decades are now eroding.
In India, State incursions are far more direct. In 2017, an “Electoral Bond” scheme to fund political campaigns was legislated by the Indian parliament. It had clear parallels with Citizens United in opening up Corporate contributions, but without a legal basis in the Indian Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court of India later struck down the legislation in an unanimous judgement10 in 2024, terming it unconstitutional and violative of Article 19. Traditional media has been mostly compromised11 - either through abdication of editorial independence or because they owe their survival to conditional financing from individuals close to the political or business class. A vibrant and open ecosystem of online content has taken its place. Many seasoned journalists have transitioned into creators and publish news and current affairs content on global platforms like YouTube, X etc. A whole generation of young people have also embraced these platforms to educate the public and disseminate opinions. The internet is the only place left in the public square of India where speech critical of the State exists. This appears to have motivated the State to float a Broadcasting Bill that restricts and creates onerous compliance burdens on creators and the content. Failure to comply exposes them to criminal prosecution, which will ultimately have a chilling effect on this vibrant ecosystem. The draft of the bill has received critical12 commentary from independent news, content and journalism community members in India and the world. If this were to become law of the land, it would be another nail in the coffin of Indian democracy, whose fundamentals are getting chipped away under a majoritarian state.
These trends of government intervention in speech rights in the world's two most important democracies is concerning. The conception of a modern nation requires the state to honor its contract with the people and press. As India emerges to be a major economic voice, it must not shut out contrarians in discourse. The promised land of America, cannot deny inalienable rights of rugged individuality to anyone who call it home. The world is more connected than ever before - digital nomads and platforms are making it so at the speed of light. It is even more important now, as the UDHR said seventy five years ago, for opinions and knowledge to be free.
Sources and Citations -
UN - History of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/the-universal-declaration-of-human-rights-is-turning-75-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
UN - Article 19 of UDHR related to free speech - https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
C-SPAN - Defining Imminent Lawless Action from US landmark case https://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/23/Brandenburg-v.-Ohio
Tennessee State University - Foreigners Rights Case 1945 https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/bridges-v-wixon/
Government of India - Rights of Speech (Article 19) in the Indian Constitution https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19150/1/constitution_of_india.pdf
The Print News - Delhi Police seize M F Hussain paintings deemed offensive https://theprint.in/judiciary/delhi-court-orders-seizure-of-offensive-mf-husain-paintings-igniting-debate-on-artistic-freedom/2457933/
BBC - Indian Student arrest for speech considered seditionary https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35576855
Techcrunch - Free speech rights of Foreigners/Foreign Platforms in India https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/24/india-court-rejects-xs-free-speech-argument-backs-government-takedown-powers/
Cato Institute - Recent US executive branch action on rights of Foreigners https://www.cato.org/blog/us-citizens-dont-have-first-amendment-rights-noncitizens-dont
Supreme Court Observer - Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional in India - https://www.scobserver.in/cases/association-for-democratic-reforms-electoral-bonds-case-background/
Reporters Without Borders - Press Freedom Index https://rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom
Internet Freedom Foundation - Indian Broadcasting Bill 2024
