One might make the argument that if you call for abolishing the RBI, you can be prosecuted because your free speech has 'reasonable restrictions' under article 19(2).
Here's a chatgpt generated response that makes the case that your call for ending the RBI is still protected by the constitution:
Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution do not apply to the argument that the existence of the RBI violates fundamental rights, for the following reasons:
1. No Threat to Public Order or Security of the State
Criticizing the existence of the RBI or advocating its abolition is a peaceful exercise of free speech. It does not incite violence, rebellion, or public disorder.
The mere existence of alternate monetary frameworks or ideas about decentralization does not harm the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India.
2. No Defamation or Contempt
Challenging the RBI’s monopoly or critiquing its policies does not defame individuals or institutions in a personal capacity, nor does it constitute contempt of court. Instead, it is a legitimate economic and philosophical critique.
3. Not Against Decency or Morality
Criticism of the RBI is based on economic principles and constitutional arguments, which are not related to public decency or morality. Such critiques engage with ideas, not obscene or offensive content.
4. Advocacy for Reform is Protected Speech
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to express dissent against government institutions, including advocating for the abolition of state monopolies like the RBI. Unless speech incites violence or lawless action (per the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a doctrine India often draws from), it remains protected.
5. Not an Incitement to an Offence
Proposing the abolition of the RBI through lawful and peaceful means, such as reforms or alternative institutions, is not an incitement to commit a criminal offense. It is an intellectual and political critique.
6. Sovereignty and Integrity of India
The existence of the RBI, and critiques against it, do not threaten the sovereignty or integrity of India. The RBI's role in monetary policy and currency issuance is an internal economic function that does not endanger the country's territorial integrity or independence. Advocating for the abolition of the RBI is a policy critique and does not involve disintegration of the nation or any form of external interference. It is merely an expression of dissent against state-monopolized money.
7. Public Health and Safety (Indirectly Related)
While the RBI may influence financial stability, its critique does not directly affect public health or safety in the context of Article 19(2). Public health typically pertains to issues like sanitation, disease control, or natural disasters, none of which are directly impacted by discussions about the banking system. Economic freedom, including the right to debate monetary policy, is integral to personal liberty and cannot be arbitrarily restricted under the guise of protecting public health or safety.
Thus, reasonable restrictions cannot be invoked. In fact, it upholds the spirit of democracy by encouraging debate about state power and individual liberty.