Jurisprudence of Convenience

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.