Hamdara dawakhana v Union of india (1960) – Right to advertisement.

There was a statute enacted to control advertisement of drugs, therefore this breached the freedom
of speech & expression.

They were restricting advertise of drugs which feeds morality and prevent self-medication

The true nature of the advertisement has to be determined in accordance with the object in which
the advertisement is given. In terms of commercial entity, the entire object behind it is to earn
profits. The basic issue is advertisement is been used to pecuniary objective. Therefor we cannot
apply aricle 19 and the govt can restrict.

Tata press ltd v MTNL (1995) commercial speech cannot be denied - protection of article 19 (1) (a)

Kameshwar Prasad v state of Bihar – There is a right to demonstration under article 19 provided it is
not violent and disorderly.

Maneka Gandhi v UOI – There is a fundamental right to travel abroad – where security of the state is
threatened they can pose reasonable restriction. They cannot put unjust restriction.

UOI v Naveen Jindal – Right to fly the national flag

NALSA v UOI – values of privacy, self-autonomy, self-identity and personal integrity are fundamental
rights under article 19 (1) (a)

Section 19 (1)(g) Right to carry trade business profess – Exelware v UOI – Socialism does not go to
the extent of taking over private ownership of the

Restrictions article 19 (6) : State monopoly – Bikaji Narayan v state of MP.

Akdasai Pradhan v state of Odisha – Odisha was conferring monopoly of state in the matter of
tobacco leaves. Any such law has to satisfy principal of legality and Public interest.

State of Rajasthan v mohanlal: if a monopoly is created it can only be created in the favour of state
and not in favour of a third party and the profit should be for state gain and not for personal gain.

Liquor trade- Cooberjee v excise commissioner Ajmer- No inherent right to sell intoxicating liquor.

MP jain Xerox Article 19

Article 13 from VN Skukla