Question- Analyze the present situation of curfew due to coronavirus where the borders are

closed and people are not allowed to move freely throughout the territory of India. Whether this
curfew and sealing of border against Article 19(1)(d). Substantiate your answer with case laws.

Article 19(1)(d) guarantees to every citizen the right to move freely throughout the
territory of India. But under Article 19(5) the state may impose reasonable restrictions on these
rights by law in the interests of general public or for the protection of the interests of any
Schedule Tribe. The citizens of India have a right to free movement throughout the country but
subject to this restriction that the State may in circumstances of where interests of general public
are at stake, curb this freedom.

With over 6,38,146 confirmed cases all over the world and 30,105 confirmed deaths and
affecting 203 countries, areas or territories having the corona virus cases, the public at large
needs protection. India has 979 confirmed cases and the government in order to protect the lives
of the public declared a complete shutdown. Though there are a few exceptions wherein certain
emergency, grocery and daily needed products will be available from time to time.

The social distancing is a need to prevent a boost in the number of cases and therefore,
the government has taken the steps imposing reasonable restrictions. Case Law: Rupinder Singh
Sodhi v Union of India; AIR (1983) 1 SCC 156

Question- Internet is a Fundamental right under freedom of Speech and Expression. Does that
mean that Government cannot ban internet in any situation? Examine it with relevant case laws.

19. (1) All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression. Article
19(1)(a) guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. But under article
19(2), there exist reasonable restrictions which can be imposed on the exercise of this right for
certain purposes. While it is necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech and
expression in a democratic country so also it is necessary to place some curb on this freedom for
maintenance of social order. No freedom can be absolute or completely unrestricted. The
restrictions under article 19(2) include in the interest of security of state, friendly relations with
foreign states, public order, decency, morality, sovereignty and integrity of India or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence.
  However, the increasing use of this provision to completely shut down the Internet is
becoming a cause of concern, for the reason that it amounts to a direct violation of the
fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India. The Internet is not only a medium to exercise the right to free speech and expression, but
is correctly identified as a catalyst in the process of imparting, receiving, and sending
information. This freedom is undisputedly fundamental for a democratic organization, moreover
it is an enabler of other socio- economic and cultural rights.

The Apex Court has rightly held that the guaranteed freedom of free speech and
expression can be restricted only if a danger qualifies as an immediate threat as per Article 19(2).
This danger should not be 'remote, conjectural or farfetched, but have a proximate and direct
nexus with the expression sought to be restricted'. The type of speech that can be restricted was
clarified by the Supreme Court in the recent landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India ((2015) 5 SCC 1). While highlighting the subtle difference between discussion, advocacy,
and incitement, it was held that only speech that may lead to 'incitement' can justifiably be
curtailed under Article 19(2). Therefore, when this right is restricted, firstly, there has to be
surety of a looming danger that has a 'direct and proximate nexus' with the expression being
curtailed, secondly, this expression needs to qualify as 'incitement' and not mere advocacy of
one's opinion, and thirdly, the measure imposed should be the last resort and unavoidable.

The heavy losses accrued by business due to this untimely shut down of the internet also
amount to an infringement of their freedom 'to practice any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business' as laid down under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This
fundamental right can only be limited on the following three grounds as laid under Article 19(6):

Reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public;

Any law relating to the professional or technical qualifications necessary for carrying on any
profession, trade, or business; and

Any law relating to the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the
State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of
citizens or otherwise.
 The phrase 'in the interest of general public' has been held to include 'public order, public
health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in
Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution.' In the present scenario, due to
a restriction in accessing the internet, businesses that rely on the internet as their operating
medium were unduly constrained, and incurred significant monetary losses, thereby affecting
their fundamental right to practice any profession, or carry on with any trade, business or
occupation.

The rights to freedom of speech and expression and to practice any profession or carry on
any trade, business or occupation over the medium of the internet enjoy constitutional protection
under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Question- How is the objective given in the preamble to provide Liberty to the people is fulfilled
by incorporation of Article 19. Critically examine whether liberty is granted to the citizens in its
true sense?

Liberty is defined as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions
imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behaviors, or political views. In its preamble the
Indian constitution emphasizes the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship and
these fundamental rights are elaborated in Article 19 of the constitution. According to me liberty
is not granted to citizens in its true sense.

With regard to CAA/ NRC

With relation to police brutalities

In respect to Jammu and Kashmir

How the ambiguity on the interpretation and exceptions mentioned in this are being used to
silence the voice of minorities

Liberty at the government’s whim. Guarantees reduced to a trifle. Effectively, therefore,

the judgment places liberty at the pleasure of government. It reduces the Constitution’s core
guarantees to a trifle. Yet, extraordinary as the verdict appears, a study of the history of the law
of preventive detention in India, especially as applied in the State of J&K, would show us that
we ought to have little to be surprised about. The ruling, in recognizing boundless executive pre-
eminence, only gives effect to a long-standing jurisprudence.

In the litany of precedents that the judgment has cited, pride of place is occupied by
India’s first big constitutional case, A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. There, the Supreme Court
of India found that Article 21, which guarantees a right to life and personal liberty, does not
require the state to follow due process. It was therefore, in the court’s belief, that Article 22 had
been incorporated, stipulating a set of procedural parameters for preventive detention laws. And
such laws, according to the court, were immunized from the limitations placed on the legislature
by other fundamental rights.

The verdict in Gopalan has since been overruled. Not only has the Supreme Court held
that the fundamental rights chapter comprises a network of mutually dependent promises but it
has also ruled that Article 21 implicitly includes within it a guarantee of substantive due process.
In other words, the clause demands that any action or law that limits liberty ought to fair, just,
and reasonable, untouched by the caprices of the state.

Question- Write a short note on prostitution being treated as a Profession or trade under Article
19(1)(g)?

Article 19(1)(g) guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession, or to carry
on any occupation, trade or business. Under Article 16(6) the state is not prevented from making
a law imposing in the interest of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
above right. Nor is the state prevented from making (a) a law relating to professional or technical
qualifications necessary for practicing a profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or
business; or (b) a law relating to the carrying on by the state or by corporation owned or
controlled by it, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or
partial, of citizens or otherwise.

Any sexual intercourse outside socially-acceptable unions is regarded as prostitution. It

has been a controversial debate from past few years that should prostitution be considered as
work. The word “prostitution” has many ‘negative’ connotations with it but the work “sex
workers” bring a different kind of work in the same category. The sale of access to one’s body
involves a sale of “so much of women self” that the contract by its nature denies dignity and
humanness to the seller contrary to the right of equality and security of the person.

This article basically deals with the idea of prostitution as profession, trade or occupation
as defined under Article 19(1) (g) of the Indian constitution. The freedom is not uncontrolled, for
clause (6) of the Art. imposes reasonable restrictions on this right i.e it should be in the interest
of general public and there must be reasonable restriction.

The reasonable of the object must be determined in an objective manner. It is necessary

to establish a nexus between the restriction and its object, and the object of such restriction must
be in the interest of the general public. The Supreme Court once observed in Kasturi Lal
Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir. “Any action taken by the Government with the
view to giving effect to any one or more of the Directive Principles would ordinarily, qualify for
being regarded as reasonable”. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation,
trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general
public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community.

Prostitution has many negative impacts on the society. There is no dignity in prostitution.
Many of the acts of prostitution, including those that are photographed in the making of
pornography, are intended to degrade, humiliate and express domination over women. They are
acts of misogyny, not respect or affection, and have nothing to do with love or intimacy. Women
don’t emerge from sexual exploitation into positions of power, respect or admiration. They
remain powerless as individuals and an underclass as a group. Global sexual exploitation is a
human rights crisis for women and girls. It is also a crisis for democracy and the security of
nations. The harm of sexual exploitation extends from the individual to the state. The rape-like
sex acts of prostitution cause harm to women and girls‟ bodies and minds. Women contract
sexually transmitted and other infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis. They suffer from post-
traumatic stress, depression and anxiety. With few options, women comply in hope that
eventually they will earn enough money to buy their way out of debt bondage or find a way to
escape. When escape is not possible, they use drugs and alcohol to numb themselves from the
emotional distress and assaults to their dignity and bodily integrity.

Article 19(6) can impose restriction if it is parallel to the DPSP‟s given under Part IV of
the constitution.