Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article 19 PDF
Article 19 PDF
Clause (a) to (g) of Article 19(1) guarantee to the citizens of India six freedoms, viz., of ‘speech and
expression’, ‘peaceable assembly’ ‘association’, ‘free movement’, ‘residence’, and ‘practicing any
profession and carrying on any business’.
These various freedoms are necessary not only to promote certain basic rights of the citizens but
also certain democratic values in, and the oneness and unity of, the country.
Art. 19 guarantee some of the basic, values in, and the oneness and unity of, the country. Art. 19
guarantee some of the basic, valued and natural rights inherent in a person.
The freedom given under Article 19 could only be restricted on the grounds mentioned in the article
itself.
Grounds of Restriction
• Security of State and Public order – Public order means public peace, safety and tranquility.
• Sovereignty and integrity of India – This is the restriction which legitimizes the law of
sedition. Was added by 16th Amendment Act based on the recommendations made by the
Committee on National Integration and Regionalism. Targets individuals or organizations
Added ‘public order’, ‘friendly relations with foreign states’ and ‘incitement to an offence’ as
grounds for restriction.
Telangana problem
Reasonable Restriction:
on the one hand, they specify that these freedoms are not absolute;
on the other hand, they put a limitation on the power of the legislature to restrict these freedoms.
The restrictions under this clause can be imposed only by or under the authority of law; no
restriction can be imposed by executive action alone without there being a law to back it up.
It is difficult to give an exact definition to the word reasonable. There is no definite test to adjudge
reasonableness of a restriction. However, the Courts have laid down a few broad propositions in this
respect.
This ground has been added as a ground of restriction on the freedom of speech and expression by
the Sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, with effect from 6th October, 1963. The object was
to enable the state to control crisis for secession and the like from organizations such as the Dravida
Kazhagam in the South and the Plebiscite Front in Kashmir and activities in pursuance thereof which
might not possibly be brought within the fold of the expression ‘security of the state’.
“Security of State” is a much wider expression and includes economic security also.
Freedom of Press
Court held that order is outside the purview of Article 19(2) and cannot be sustained.Provided the
right to liberty of circulation.
Order was passed, fixing number of pages and size which a newspaper could publish at a price.
The court held that restriction not justified by the grounds under 19(2). The effect was to reduce
circulation or volume of newspaper.
The validity of Working Journalists Act was challenged which was enacted to regulate conditions of
services (such as number of working hours, number of leaves, fixation of wages, etc) of persons
employed in newspaper industry .
Act was challenged on the ground that it will adversely affect the economic conditions of newspaper
and consequentially will affect their circulation and thus was violation of Article 19(1)(a).
The court held that the press was not immune from laws of general application or ordinary forms
of taxation, or law of industrial relation. Therefore, the court upheld the constitutionality of the act.
Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v Cricket Association of West Bengal (1995)
AIR WAVES CASE
Petitioner wanted to telecast cricket matches organized by it through frequency not owned or
controlled by government of India but owned by a foreign satellite agency.
Petitioner sought permission from Doordarshan to uplink the signals created by its own camera and
the earth station. Doordarshan rejected the permission on the ground that it enjoys monopoly by
virtue of Telegraph Act 1885 and that frequencies available in India are in limited number.
Board argued that game of cricket provided entertainment to public and was a form of speech and
expression under 19 (1) (a) which included a right to telecast the matches and broadcast it to the
public.
The Court held that Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to acquire information and
to disseminate the same. The right to communicate therefore means right to communicate through
any media that is available whether print or electronic or audio-visual such as advertisements,
articles, speech etc. it includes freedom to communicate and circulate one’s views.
The right to freedom of speech and expression includes right to educate, right to inform, and to
entertain and also right to be educated, informed and entertained. The former is the right of the
telecaster and the latter the right of the viewers.
The right to impart and receive information is a species of the right to freedom of speech and
expression. A citizen has a right to use the best means of imparting and receiving information.
The Court held that commercial advertisement is a form of speech and expression as they
disseminate information through advertisement.
Since the restriction was not part of Article 19(2) it cannot be sustained.
The Central government will grant authority to competent persons who can impose restriction. And
the board appointed should draw a line and put reasonable restrictions. And also classification
according to age groups and their suitability for unrestricted exhibition is considered as valid in the
interests of public morality and thus won’t offend freedom of speech and expression.
The Court held that pre-censorship is justified because it is done in the interest of the society thus
restriction is fine if it is reasonable but if it isn’t and goes outside the purview of Article 19(2) then
the abuse of power can be questioned.
Court held that they had not insulted the national anthem and the government circular cannot
violate article 19(1)(a), which includes in itself the right to remain silent.
Right to Demonstration
Court held that demonstration being visible representation of ideas would be protected as a form of
speech provided they are not violent and disorderly.
Article 19(1) (a) included a right to demonstration provided it is not violent or disorderly.
The Central government imposed a ban on Jamaat e Islam under the unlawful activities prevention
act.
The court held that there should be a sufficient cause for declaring the association unlawful. The
procedure to be followed is that when the central government declares any association
unconstitutional it should approach the tribunal and when the tribunal looks into it and confirms
then it becomes unconstitutional.
Also if the Central government thinks it is not credible to give or disclose information to the public as
it will disturb the public peace then it shouldn’t but the tribunal can look into the information and
see if it is correct and then can declare it unconstitutional.
Test of Reasonability
O. K. Ghosh v. Ex. Joseph – The restriction imposed should be reasonable and be rationally
proximate and in nexus with public interest.
Virendra v. State of Punjab – Absence of provision for review makes the provisions
unreasonable.
Municipal Corporation of Thecity v. Jan Mohd. Usmanbhai – The reasonableness
should be determined in an objective manner and from the angle of the general public’s interest and
not from the viewpoint of the person upon whom the restriction are imposed.
This right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the general public or
for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribes.
Article 19(1)(d) of The Indian Constitution guarantees to all Citizens of India the Right "to move
freely throughout the territory of India." This Right is, however subject to reasonable restrictions
mentioned under Article 19(5).
Clause (5) of Article 19 empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of
general public or for the protection of the interest of any Scheduled Tribe.
Grounds of Restrictions:
According to clause (5) of Article 19 of Indian Constitution State may impose reasonable restrictions
on the Freedom of movement on two grounds:
i) Kharak Singh V. State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295, In this case, Supreme Court Held that the
right to move freely throughout the territory of India means the right of locomotion which connotes
the right to move wherever one likes, and however one likes.
ii) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kaushalya AIR 1964 SC 416 In this Case
Supreme court held that the right of movement of prostitutes may be restricted on ground of Public
Health and in the interest of Public Morals.
The Freedom of Movement and Residence apply only to citizens of India and not the Foreigners.
A foreigner cannot claim the right to reside and settle in the country as guaranteed by Article ,Article
19(1)(e). The Government of India has The Power to expel foreigners from India.
NaShivar vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 360, Supreme Court held that there was no
fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor because of the reason of public morality public interest
and harmful and dangerous character of liquor.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs Macdowell AIR 1996 SC 1627, court held that even if trade in
intoxicating liquor fall within the scope of article 19( 1) G the state could still imposer severe
restrictions or even prohibition. on the trade in intoxicating liquor.