After India’s independence from British colonial rule in 1947, the Constitution of India was written to provide certain freedoms to its citizens. Arguably one of the most important freedoms, the right to freedom of speech and expression, was provided in Article 19 (1) after the dissolution of British rule. Though its scope was wide, its expression was not absolute; The State, as defined in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, can impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom. The implications are vast, as seen in several cases relating to freedom of speech and expression. India also continues to employ the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a colonial document that was employed to silence native dissent during British rule. In this project, I examine the ways in which the Indian Supreme Court grants freedom of speech and expression or moves to criminalize it. The project examines Supreme Court decisions centering on freedom of speech and expression, and explores the varying laws that inform those decisions. To answer, I develop an original case law dataset ranging from 2000 to 2020. Through an in-depth historical analysis of key cases on freedom of speech and expression, I code for whether the court expands or denies those rights, the types of disputes and litigants involved, and the laws or articles invoked. Preliminary findings suggest that the Supreme Court often cites the Indian Penal Code alone when moving to criminalize freedom of speech or expression, and often does so when cases relate to obscenity or defamation. These findings provide context for larger questions regarding the historical roots of laws that shape the current experience of individual rights in post-colonial nations, and also provides insight into the role courts play in upholding or constraining the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression.