Polity · 2 Aug 2026

Shreya Singhal judgment

With reference to constitutional restrictions on free speech and assembly in India, consider the following statements:

  1. Article 19(2) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interest of public order.
  2. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) held that mere advocacy of an unpopular or provocative cause is protected speech unless it crosses into incitement to imminent violence.
  3. Umar Khalid faces UAPA charges in connection with the Northeast Delhi riots.
  4. Under Article 19(2), a State can restrict content solely on the ground that it labels a cause as "anti-national," without independently establishing a threat of imminent disorder.

How many of the above statements are correct?

AOnly one
BOnly two
COnly three
DAll four

Tests the ability to distinguish the actual legal threshold for restricting speech from a political justification that invokes but does not satisfy that threshold.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

Goa Police questioned NEET protest participants with a 240-point questionnaire after one protester carried a "Free Umar Khalid" placard, prompting the Goa CM to defend the action as preventing "anti-national" movements.

Why for UPSC

This tests whether aspirants can distinguish the actual constitutional standard for restricting speech (imminent disorder) from a political justification that merely invokes a label without meeting that standard - a distinction central to the Shreya Singhal precedent.

Prelims summary

Article 19(2) restrictions on speech require a demonstrable threat of public disorder under the Shreya Singhal advocacy-incitement test; a political label like "anti-national" alone does not meet this constitutional threshold.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.