Polity · 17 Aug 2026

Shreya Singhal advocacy incitement

With reference to the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), which one of the following statements is correct?

AThe judgment held that any speech sympathetic to an ideology historically linked to violence can be restricted under Article 19(2), regardless of intent.
BThe judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act on the ground that it violated Article 21 alone.
CThe judgment held that criticism of the government amounts to sedition only when accompanied by violence, a principle it laid down for the first time in Indian law.
DThe judgment held that mere advocacy of an ideology, however unpopular, does not forfeit the protection of Article 19(1)(a) unless it amounts to incitement to imminent violence.
This question is based on: When Does Naming an Ideology Become Silencing a Citizen?
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 17 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

In his August 15, 2026 Independence Day address, PM Modi warned of "ideological sympathisers" of Naxalism embedded in institutions, terming them "dimagi Naxals" - prompting Opposition leaders to argue the label risks blurring constitutionally protected dissent with genuine security threats.

Why for UPSC

UPSC regularly tests precise attribution of landmark free-speech doctrine - confusing which case first established a principle or which Article a judgment actually rests on, is a common and testable error.

Prelims summary

Shreya Singhal (2015) distinguishes protected "advocacy" from unprotected "incitement" to imminent violence under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2). Kedar Nath Singh (1962) earlier held that criticism of government is not sedition unless it incites violence or public disorder.

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.