Prolonged criminal proceedings in free speech-related offences can inflict irreversible damage on fundamental freedoms even if the accused is acquitted later, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai said on Friday.

He warned that even if the accused ultimately secures acquittal, the delay may have already inflicted irreversible damage on their liberty, reputation and expressive agency.

"When cases involving speech offences remain pending for years, whether at the stage of investigation, trial or appeal, the process itself becomes a punishment," Justice Gavai said.

He was delivering the Justice KT Desai memorial lecture at the Bombay High Court.

The CJI also noted that the Supreme Court has increasingly been required to deal with such cases involving prolonged incarceration.

"Increasingly, the Supreme Court has been required to confront situations where the initiation of criminal proceedings, denial of bail, prolonged incarceration, or systemic delays have a direct bearing on a citizen's expressive freedom" the former CJI emphasised in his address.

He noted that in such cases, the criminal process becomes not merely a tool for adjudicating guilt, but a space where fundamental freedoms can be imperilled or protected.

Justice Gavai's lecture also traced the 75-year constitutional journey of freedom of speech and expression from the Constituent Assembly Debates to contemporary digital-age jurisprudence.

He highlighted landmark judgments including Romesh Thappar (1950), which led to the first constitutional amendment and Kedar Nath Singh (1962) wherein the Court held that even harsh criticism of the government or its policies is fully protected, and only speech that incites or has a clear and immediate tendency to incite violence or public disorder can be punished as sedition.

The former CJI underscored the judiciary's role in protecting journalistic freedom in the digital era, citing recent cases involving journalists Arnab Goswami, Vinod Dua and Mohammad Zubair.

Justice Gavai also discussed the Court's expanding interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) to encompass internet access.

He highlighted that in Anuradha Bhasin case (2020), the Court held that access to the internet has become essential for the meaningful exercise of freedom of speech and that indefinite internet shutdowns are unconstitutional.

On the intersection of free speech with other rights, he highlighted the electoral bonds judgment wherein the voter's right to make an informed electoral choice, central to free speech and democratic participation, was held to outweigh the donors' interest in confidentiality.

The Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Shree Chandrashekhar and former Chief Justice Sujata V Manohar were also present at the lecture.

Justice Gavai concluded by summarising India's constitutional journey as a conscious and consistent judicial effort to preserve

"The evolution of free speech jurisprudence in India reflects a larger constitutional commitment to ensure that the State's power to restrict expression does not overshadow the citizen's right to think, speak and participate freely in the democratic project," he said