nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/f8cd45da0fd6523c DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 240829s2024||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/f8cd45da0fd6523c doi eng 342 23 Jain, Anmol Author aut (orcid)0000-0003-4596-3911 Jurisprudence of Convenience - On the Indian Supreme Court’s Guidance-Laden Approach to Answer Hard Questions of Free Speech Law     Jain, Anmol Verfassungsblog 2024-08-29 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Last month, in Nipun Malhotra v. Sony Pictures Film India Private Ltd, the Indian Supreme Court delivered an opinion on the limits of protected speech under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution. While the opinion touched upon several important aspects of the free speech right, it is replete with behavioral guidance, and its language makes it hard to discern the binding legal principles. I argue that courts should approach cases involving hard questions of constitutional law with extreme caution in terms of their potential implication on the growth (or absence) of a consistent doctrine. CC BY-SA 4.0 Free spech Freedom of Speech Indian Constitution Indian Supreme Court (DE-588)10323306-4 gnd Freedom of Speech Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/nipun-malhotra-free-speech/ raw object