CONSTTUTION OF INDIA : onsmTUmE ; hers, Fy 216 feelings to ot! redo | timents ool right which @ human bei of ni an right. een a conveys his thoughts, SM g ‘ ion is basic hums Se erat aire teial therefore, y. Cricket Association Benga, , In Secretary, Ministry Of tS crowing justificslion given PY Davig the Supreme Court referred t0 070 1g Human Rig! d limite (t Feldman in his book "Civil Libe |i important for a n freedom of expression tg golf freely is importa amb az The liberty to express one® significant instrument of freedont Firstly, self expressi Second justification conce ofreasons, Firstiyyd self-fulfilment. Serre people to contribute 1 epistemology. Freedom of .. aly, the ‘freedom a debates about social : ‘hich is nec n any count, expression allows political diseouree facilitates artistic schol which aspires to democracy. y endeavours of all sorts. son Expressio) Meaning of Freedom of Speech and peal under Article 191) The freedom of speech and expe one’s opinions by words of mouth, means the right to speak and to haat manner. When a person is talkin; writing, printing, pictures or in any other “Jom of speech and expressi 4 on telephone, he is exercising his right to freedom of if dies freely, throu ean It is to express one’s convictions and opinions or i a sare ugh any communicable medium or visible representation, such as gesture, signs ang the like** It means to freely propagate, communicate or circulate one’s opinion or views. It also means to lay what sentiments, a free citizen pleases, before the public. . . : It, thus, includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek and receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. However, it does not include the right to speak either about the implication or involvement of the accused in any crime, particularly in the sensational crimes either in the form of opinion/views or agitations."! SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE FREEDOM Right to know and to Obtain Information The right of information is indiputably fundamental right, a facet of “speech and expression" as contained in Article 19(1)(a).* It has been said 47. AIR 1995 SC 1236; Life Insurance Corpn. v. Manubhai D. Shah, AIR 1993 SC 172, See also for similar views India Express Newspapers v. Union of India, ALR 48. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568 49, Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124, cuoti ‘ ‘ 2 f 5 }) quoting U.S, Court's view in Lovell v. City of Griffin, (1937) 308 US. aide US SUPFeme 50. Life passione Corpr. v. Manubhai D, Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171, See also State of Raletion ». os wary, AIR 3004 Raj. 14, wherein the right to election, though eee naeey, ‘as been held not a fundamental right within the a ae caer ea of Police Eddalore, AIR 2005 Mad. 127. pb ‘ivit i ¥ 5 iberties v. Union of India, ATR 2004 SC 1442.RIGHT TO FreeDOM a7 Fe eee the eeensibilty like ours, iin elomentary that citizens joan © ile act, over vthing Gone is doing. ‘They have the right to know ove) Piries. No democratic gow (2% i public way, by their public jonaries. 1 Rovernment can survive without accountability fo fxposure to public gaze and gor; ie 8 dean 7 healthy adminieed m8 of the surest means of concept of an open Pea ee right fo Row which Seeman is aid to be the direct emanation ft pression guaranteed under Arvin ¢ implicit in the right of free speech att te right to decide by whom rec 19a)” Further, that, the citizons havshey are entitled to call on those wep eat wes, and tony enduct. So said, a cine’ Who govern on their behalf, to account jc the net Bo anid citizen, prepared to pay requisite fee, is entitled tp ask for copies oF Public documents, to the inspection of such documents. With a view to provide for freedom to ev: i jal information, in ord ery citizen to secure access to official informa’ aaa fer to promote openness, transparency and gccountability mm administration and in relation to. matters connected herewith or incidental thereto, the freedom of Information Act, 2002, has been Se ae ae renee ey erahing information by the Public : m i i e wnt of the prescribed foe, i person desirous of obtaining it, on The freedom of speech and expression includes the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained.* It also includes the right of the consumer to be apprised of the ingredients of food products, cosmetics and drugs, so that he may make a right choice as per his beliefs and opinions. A Division Bench of Delhi High $3. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforma, AIR 2002 SC 2112; Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. C.A.B., AIR 1995 SC 1236; P.V. Narsimha Rao y. State, AIR 1998 SC 2120; Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2363; GV. Birpal v. Union of India, 1994 (5) SCC 550; Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306; Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, AIR 1989 SC 190; SP. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149; State of U.P. v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 855. See also Essar Oil Ltd. v. H.U. Samiti, AIR 2004 SC 1834, wherein the Apex Court said that the citizens, who had been made responsible to protect the environment, had a right to know the government's decisions, which night affect health, life and livelihood of the citizens as also the environment ‘$4. See K Ravikumar v. Bangalore University, AIR 2005 Kant, 21, wherein the Karnataka High Court held the refusal by the University to grant to the petitioner, the order of appointment of the second respondent, which he needed for challenging the apointment ia the Court, as improper. A public authority, it was said, could not flatly deny any document on ground of confidentiality or secrecy. Also see R.L. & E. Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 652; S.K. Kanitkar v. B.N. Municipal Council, AIR 2000 Bom. 453. 55. See the Object and Reasons, The Freedom of Information Act, 2002, Recently, the ‘Apex Court has ruled that the State was empowered to withhold information on various important issues, including national security, international relations and ‘rime investigation. The Act has been amended in 2005 extending its provisions to CentralState Goyernments, Panchayats, Local Bodies, recipients of government grants me oa other related matters. Inion of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112. See also a Express Newspaper v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515.eee CONSTITUTION 28 q Hed that it was of Inga tee ia) a and 25 inv. Union Sander Artic ere of Non-vogtgy Court in Ossie Htussln consumer and orfisued. directivet ant fondamental right of the cnt fy the oor aiplayed om pashat ee epeuearateal ected oymbols arian, oF A Tim! declarations and diferent cole no non. ee ying druge are concerned Sosa eee ate rerevvided as far ie Sorts a See ee ata a ther right or somone nested exemptios edents of th, the Antec 7 f the Citizene/Voters to Know ; Right of the : and express onoye Candidater at Election jarantees the right edie imeem : ee Nan ee eee oe expression i case coe ia denoey "hae been sald that voter speaks in a democracy. It has vote ® ernment i tinual articipatiys ; way pouts a re’ citizenry aclaining cae eel deren nan on ‘war < =n berate f India v. For Reforges Tuled eye tight to know antecedents inclu rms, Past of his can ding criminal didete contesting lection for ae Ahem etal and basic for survival of democracy. Holding that without free and fair ele t survive tions, without free and fairly informed voter, the guaranteed by To maintain the Cansparency in the process of election, mmission of India, ‘ary part of his Nomination educational qualifications and his assets, $7, AIR 2008 Deiat 105 Prevention of Food Adulteration icles of food, Act, 1954, containe such a 58. Government would be, entitle to withold information relating to : (jy International = Gi) tional ity including -q Public safety; (i) investigation, detection Prevention of crime, (ry? liberatti St aig nt Satan a ei nie) information, if dis (ii) information of Which is gy) Provision in respect information about ‘nion of India, AIR ” for Dem emocratie Reforms, AIR 2002 2, ! ; ‘missioner, AIR 1978 gq 851, “an 4 ™ation ang Broadcast ic : le "hike Assiation op Bengal, AIR > Powe C0, direct 1 PMMRisgion, See i tear control of the conductRi RIGHT TO FREEDOM 219 ast, a8 Well a8 present criminal record or 08 ‘Taw Commission of India, in i = MH remmendations in nda, in its 170th Report submitted in 1999 d debarring hi M8 aint him by a Conn cntesting an election if charges had been famed tnt of India, in its Report ate, The Vohra Committe of the Herter sation of polities, Deapite sented the grave danger posed bY we i ahra Committe, the senate the Reports of the Law Commission te * jorming the oe ctoral oe Governments had failed to take ing that the C Holo amend the lary, (ould not pass any order, directing. the yefilttic Reforms v. Union Delhi High Court in Association for pe sion ‘to secure to Voters, fee of India,” directed the Election conta ions and antecedents of Te Pertaining to assets, educational uti passed by the Delhi Ij feof the candidates contesting election fhe O78) Supreme Court as fie Court was contested by the Union of spdinin He ed by the Delhi High ens poet of the Court, Modifying the et mation in democracy ene the Apex Court said that the right to T right flowing fro ‘a8 recognised all throughout and that it qos ature tt eae zd om the concept of democracy.®” oe o it of Passe x Hanae rendered by the Apex Court,® the ‘ep? Tmendment) Or aia was amended by the Representation of ope (Amn People (Ind nee ‘Act, 2002, which was replaced by the Free ee esa Iment) Act, 2002. The vires of that Act eo cen the Supreme Court in Peoples Union for Civil [ieee ea nae of India,® contending that the changes profueed were notin acordance with what had been desared by the Apex Coa in Union of India v Association for Democratic Reform.” Section $93 ofthe impugned Act provided that despite the direction issued by the ‘Apex Court," no candidate would be required to disclose or furnish any such Hrmation which was not required to be disclosed or furnished under the impugned Act.” nite oo The follow ‘The information on the following aspects was required to be furnished :— (1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of a crimit in the past—if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine? i (2) Prior . ‘six months of filing of nomination, whether he is accused in any ‘of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more 1 ened oe cgeance btn Wy te oar If the ding case, and in which details thereof. (8) The asseta of a candidate and hisher spouse and that of dependants (4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution or government dues. (6) The educational qualifications of the candidate. For details see Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112. AIR 2001 Delhi 126. {1 Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112 6 Bid. ©. AIR 2003 SC 2363, %. AIR 2002 SC 2112. Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 4112. 11 See Union of India v. Association for The Amendment Ach, 2002 required the disclosure of information in respect Of ending criminal proceedings as well as past conviction, See for detatls the Representation of People (Srd Amendment) Act, 2002, i— —s the ; oat eral publi and not put in the market for sale to ‘Supreme Court, uphi ae SyStave" within poolding the right of the respondent, held that the LIC BEIM the community meaning of Article 12, must function in the best fier oct, 1956 to carry au Wa Created under the Life Inaurance ration se community, Tee on Life Insurance business to the best savant ot this requirement mmmunity was, therefore, entitled to know wing ofthe LIC. e Statute was being satisfied in the Referring to the earlier decisions, athe freedom of speech and expressioy observ! the Supreme Court explained the scope n guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Once it is c i e of speech... incl ane it cannot indeed be disputed that freedom eedom of circulation... of ideas, there can be no doubt ieee oa to the citizen being permitted to use the med iticism levelled against the views propagated by compelled Speech The right to free speech and expression also includes compelled speech. often known as a must carry provision in a Statute, if it furthers informed decision-making. Therefore, the requirement under the various cinematograph iegislations that in each cinema theatre, the exhibitor of films must show a film which may be educational or scientific, a documentary film, or a film carrying news or current events, alongwith the other films, has been held not Golative of Article ,19¢1)(a). It has been ruled that when a substantially Sgnificant population body is iliterate or does not have easy access to ideas S¥information, it is important that all available means of communication, particularly audio-visual communication, are utilised not just for entertainment but also for education, information, propagation of scientific ideas and the like.” Freedom of Silence—Right not to speak . In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala,” the Supreme Court held that no person ‘could be compelled to sing National Anthem “if he has genuine conscientious objections based on his religious belief". In this case, there children belonging to Jehovah's Witnesses, were expelled from the school for refusing to sing the National ‘Anthem during school prayers. They ‘used to stand up respectfully when the National Anthem was being sung, but did not join in singing it. The Kerala High Court upheld their expulsion from the school on the ground that it was their fundamental duty to sing the National Anthem and that they committed an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971. 7 | The Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision of the High Court and observed that they did not commit any offence. It was held that the 75. Union of India v. The Motion Picture ‘Association, AIR 1999 SC 2334; Life Insurance Corporation v. Manubhai D. Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171. 7%. AIR 1987 SC 748.1ON_OF INDIA consmutl en 222 pool was a Violation of + ac A ' jon of the children, from ea) Which also included free dothtix expulsion of icle 1 ‘eedom of expression includes the matt it "Jamental right under 4 MMence It may, thus, be stated tha! not to express.”” oulana Mufti Syeq d Pollution i as held that Ay, Right Against Soun in ene the Calcutta High Corwost Bengal,” hi t Artion Noorar Rehman Barkati v. St% fo excessive sound. Upholding 4)” the zens 2B! ‘and loud speakers at the time of giyi,” epearticle 19(1)(a), claim a 19(1a) protected oe rophone restrictions on the use of microP’ oo could un seer the Court enid that ne OMe S's could disturb coher, bowie gum abeolute right to suspend other TIED and leisure. The imposition Tights and fundamental rights ©) cr the right under Article 25. of Tights 00g par been held not violative Of Te sound in the atmosphere, ‘Sound pollution simply connotes YO" a) quality. Sound is Pollution is umsanted because it lacks the agreeable MUS note of noise polluti ea is unwanted en become undesirable.” Taking °° 7's amediate mi ‘ution, when its efieench of Orissa High Court issue te ors.2? easures, a oilatige the use of explosive fire works and loudSP . Right of the Convict to Express Himself : nt Of ‘Hasan v Government of Andhra Pradesh,” the AP. High Court held that refusal to journalist and videographers seeking interview with oar nel g ha aners amounted to deprivation of citizens fundamental right to ee Mind expression under Article 19(1(a). As far the exercise a). As f of pexeemontal rights concerned, the Court said, position of a condemned prisoner was on par with a fre citizen. He had a right, the Court ruled, to give his ideas and was entitled to be interviewed or to be televised. Freedom of the Press—Included ‘Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and i phrase "speech and expression" is of very Leer aee enemas ioe haturally prest pposes a second party to whom the ideas are e: d communicated. The freedom of expression, thus, includes the fr: edom of the propagation of eae, their publication and circulation. In short, the free om Of speach and ¢ pression includes the liberty ofthe Fee aA esate inlike the American Constituti i , separately provide for libacty of ths neces Th ee does not specifically or De BR Acbedkar when ho obesreae en The omission was explained by The press has no special rights whi are not to be exercised by the i which are not to be given or which se dt a be exereiaed by the citizen in his individual capacity. The expression, and, therefore, ae erect rely exercising the right of the ___ freedom of the press eae ee ee 77, National Bank of Canada m ain —a.. 2a fee, 3984 SCR 269, 2. Buyayananda fascod Alam v, : ae Patra v. District Magistrate, Gaetan AIR 1956 Cal. 9 Miami : }00 Orissa, 70. AIR 1999 8C 1 0 State, through S, 62. CAD Vil, 980. Boe also Brij Bhushan fupdt. Central Jail v. Charulata Joshis 4 _ v. St : "tate of Delhi, AIR 1950: SC 129.en = TO FREEDOM ia now settled law that the.) ete 1901) inclades the fiber 8H? 0 freedom o Of the preag , i dom of speech and expression i ing and Scope of Fro, Nes Censorship on Proml°™ Of the Prog . pe licence eubjeenned by Lord Mansfiotd co wilh tiye freedom of the press, thug. nena aduences of iad 223 "printing jeases, without any previoug pore a the right to print and publish what jon is, therefore, violative pe '!*8ion. Impositi, = se secon ie ee one Pl wt a Clause (2) of Article 19. unde! Brij Bhushan v. Stat oe sust Punjab Public Safety act jot in Pursuance of Section 7(1Kc) of Beit Gemeente fas sh printer Thi, directing them “nu™ ERElish weekly he ore soe oer, the from, Del ell further an to submit, for ana oe publisl liom stan including pheeige/ ©O™munal matters ang ect before pout Paki ‘otographs a bib fom ofa courees or Supplied by the news son ote than thot derived forme Cou own the order . The majority of the . Violative of Article 19(1)(a). Pre-Stoppage of Publicati, ner St Ecblic Important! in Newspapers of Articles or In Likert Hie of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that panning a ee ‘about - newsPapers of its own views or the views of correspondent we the burning topic of the day was "a serious = roachment on the valuable and cherished right to freedom of speech and expression’. In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v, Propri i sv. to Newspapers, beara ae rons the Supreme lcettuet that re-publication ban even under a Court injuncti justified i Borst of justice only when there was a done so cond be Justified in the r nly wh was a clear and imminent danger to the administration of fair justice and not otherwise. Likewise, in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, court held that neither the Government nor the ote not any author to impose a prior restraint upon publication of a material on the ground that such material was likely to be defamatory of them, The right to publish the life-story of a condemned prisoner, in so far as, it appears from the public records, even without his consent or authorisation, has been held to be included in the freedom of the press guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a). No prior restraint upon such publication can be imposed.” 83. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305; Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129. 8&4. King v. Dean of the State Asaph, (1784) 3 TR 428. See also Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106. 85. AIR 1950 SC 129. 86. AIR 1957 SC 896. See also Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578. 47. AIR 1989 SC 190. 8, AIR 1995 SC 264. 89. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 ‘SC 264. See also Khushwant Singh Vv. Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2002 Del 58.va RIGHT TO FREEDOM 233 in ie Seance Government of Tamil Nadu,” a Division each of te oloyees cannot riled : "Apart from the statutory rights, the govern rike.” ‘Taking a tou i: ‘aim that they can hold society to ransom by Fo ee et thee done Stand on government employees using strike as weapo! a kad bee ands fulfilled, the Apex Court said that strike 3s 8 woe ration Such aeetly misused, resulting in chaos and total 2018 ed society as a whole ny by the government employees, the Court said, aff y eee and brought the administration to a grinding sit. If they presumed that injustice had been done to them, there was a at ol Ht elfare State for the redressal of their grievances, Expressing concern over the declining work culture, the Apex Court observed + , For redressing their grievances, instead of going on strike, if employees do some more work honestly, diligently and efficiently, such gesture would not only be appreciated by the authority but also by people at large. Since the first judicial pronouncement on strike in 1962,** new categories of people have started resorting to this weapon, eg., doctors, airlines pilots, ground staff manning air traffic control, self-employed professionals like the lawyers. As regards the lawyers a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Harish Uppal v. Union of India,* categorically pronounced that the lawyers had no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even a token strike. The Court observed : The law is already well settled....a lawyer who has accepted a brief cannot refuse to attend Court because a boycott call in given by the Bar Association....it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer.sthat Courts are under an obligation to hear and decide case brought before it and cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers are on strike...that it is the duty and obligation of Courts to go on with matters or otherwise it would tantamount to becoming a privy to the strike... Lawyer have known, at least since Mahabir Singh’s case....that if they participate in a boycott or a strike, their action is ex facie bad in view of the declaration of law by this Court....that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by their clients if the non-appearance was solely on grounds of a strike. call. [ [ee 5 , 3 AIR 2003 SC 3032. Lashing out at the political parties, trade unions and other ‘call for strikes but fail to observe it democratically uch organisations, who giv n and control their workers, the Apex Court, in a recent judgment, has directed the Centre and State Governments to take stringent action against hooligans indulging in violance and damaging properties during bands, hartals and stricks. 3% AU india Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1962 8c 171, 4 AIR 2003 SC 739, See also Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Put, Lid. : oe ee AIR 2001 SC 207; K. John also Rai Subhas Kapoor, , i Koshy y, ey ‘Show, Peay 8 SoC G24, U.PSTS Asiociation v. Taxation Bar eration, Agra, AIR 1996 SC 98. Fera ee ort 3 ao at? gga st ° guild iblic ine” 18 Woy or pot a pes otras public instigy®, ba but py an advocate stands tio, thas bee Mr stick Mand public so hem, he OO°UPISS & Dosis, § putchers and ig justi and Fin roe m committed . a ves the yitigar” Tocoparentis (0 oon 208 + profession hivpriel Of tonto? dignity, int . tes! jignity, 1 egrity ," pro re the Y ay re; ~ whel stake.” in dy or at v from anybody oF authori not be £2, erated bey x the Cou! me justi? nat a advocate for DON MPT aTENe ‘action again it has peen sugges that the assing Tesolutions y adminis in ee daly 0 pias A poyett ances BY ip grievance’ gsions, holding dharma, as a noble one by the al ent iat not merchandjc"® from work by lawye. ventations or to resort 00 relay fast, ha “ ¢ BANDE, Hartals, Blockades No Right to Call or Bnfore muni st Party of India v. Bharat The Supreme Court Pompe decision 0 the Kerala High Court in 4 reiterated with approve and laid dow” that there was no right ‘Kumar v. State ¢ Keraley red with the exercise of fundamental “tition to caus national loss in many ways, sn fact, a curfew” declared against the State. A bandh, the Cou ce . ‘The Kerala High Court had he political partly had the right to call for bandh on the plea that it was 8 of its fundamental right of +h and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Court said that calling for and holding of bondh by & political party oF organisation involved a threat, express oF implied, to citizen not to carry on his activities or to practise his vocation on the day ofthe band) and hence, violation of the fundamental ights of the citizen ‘contained in Articles 19(1) and 21. il ng i $6 Harish Uppal v. Union of Indi, AIR 2003 SC 739. fra v. ML. Dabholkar, AIR 1975 SC 2092; Indian Counc! 10 691; BL. Wadehra v. State, AIR 37. Bor Council of Moharosh @ Legal Aid ad Advice v. BCI, AIR 1995 5 2000 Delhi 266. 38, Pandi it Po rang D. Khondekar v. Bor Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 110. - ese e carrer ered 1995(2) Mad. LW 111. oe pane ena SC 207, per justice Sethi. : ia, Harish Uppal v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC Beg oe ew per Justice BM, Shah, 743, bol 1998 80 104; Kerala VV. eae ae Samithiv. State of Ker 388: ‘Asseen. v. State of Bikar, wrala, AIR 2000 Ker. **" har, AIR 1999 Pat. 169. 46, AIR 1997 Ker 291. aust to call or enforce "0! freedoms of other citizens, in a rt said, WAS, a. 4“. “a “5.St TO FREEDOM a. ion “hartal" pression " is of Indian origi ghe exPmmercial activity ‘aie, Cigin.” Tt .s6?.% ye has been held that ppl 98 & type of organised. passive 190° he understood to be a legirtth Unaccompanied b violence or rejoins the wake of a tragedy, ae form of protest of signification ¢ Bedy, natio " Sesigtannot be held to be objectionable oy neal Thus mere calling (pooste cept of hartall strictly go callad ang @ou the moment it comes out 236 i i d 4 ie rights of others, it would oe poycott simply speaking ig rej jie to work for, or deal with, in ofs8i mm or use the services of 2 1¢ fi see to work. It means "to combine in s ee intimidate or coerce, to refuse r e serv a ° o 0 similar x ina an regarding a blockade ee vi a aiara blockade ofthe oe ofthe ltl authmity sa topcoat sep fr approa 'Y In exercise of their right of free movement. article 19(1)(a) Recognises No Geographical Barriers In — ae 4 Union of India,* the Supreme Court laid down shat the fre ren an and expression under Article 19(1)(a) had no engraphical imitations. The freedom carried with it, the right to gather information as also to speak and express oneself, at home and abroad and to exchange thoughts and ideas with others, not only’ in India but also utside.® onable Restrictions on Freedom of Speech an i fatele 19(2)1 pe d Expression Clause (2) of Article 19 specifies the purposes or grounds in the interest of which or in relation to which reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression. It may be noticed that reasonable restrictions under Clause (2) of Article 19 can be imposed only by a duly enacted law and not by executive action unsupported by law."” Security of State ‘The expression "security of the State" refers to serious and aggravated forms of public disorder such as rebellion, waging war against the State, 4. See Kerala V.V.E. Samithi v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 Ker. 389. 4 See Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, quoted Ibid. 4. See Universal Dictionary of English Language, quoted Ibid. 50. See CPI. v. Bharat Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 184. 51, Ibid., See also Kerala V.V.E. Samithi v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 Ker. 389. : See Websters Dictionary of English Language, quoted Ibid. Ibid. 4. Kerala V.V.E. Samith AIR 2000 Ker. 389 V.E. iv. State of Kerala, ; 7 8% AIR 1978 SC 597, For facts sce infra Chapter on “Right to life and Personal liberty : 56 See also Secretary, Ministry of I. & B. v. Cricket Association, Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1036, ® Krishnan SC 128; Kharak Singh v. State nan Kaki te of Kerala, AIR 1997 ; FOE tae ate eh Thoper v. State of Madras, AIR 1860 SC 124.—_—_—_—— IDIA coNsTTUTION oF IN be endangered by Crimeg = fe MAY ing of wa, 236 rity of the SGoremment, Waar nN speed ingurrection$ Thus the rthrow the ageresstannot be said to inva” of violence intended (0 Print, 0 f rnment change advocated ig rebelion agains OP in the syste a0 Tonk as ions on the ‘part of the icant ts ity of # yr exp? ission of vi Crimes threat to the security Of nog o commission unconstitutional While, op encourage he i State. foe individual which incite to the security “Article 19(2) does not mere, such as murder would endanger 11° «ron in untry. Endangering tp oop th : : The expression "security of the Sr entire mreat to the security of 1° ity of the oe to the securit involve ceeurity of part ofthe State would i a State: Stat es 4 itution (Fi Friendly Relations With coe 19(2) by the Constitui (First This ground was added to Artic unrestraineq F A ibit any ine Amendment) Ath 1961 ion is 1 ee eee 7 _The object bel libels against a foreiey ee Relations Act, 1932, eee rome en diem ie qegaiost foreign dignitaries maintaining friendly relati ian citizens agai i . Boch tie a thin io epression and are saved By Article 19()0 Public Order Amendment) Act, ; stitution (First i , This ground was added by the Con: Court in Romesh 1951, as a consequence of the decision of the Supreme Thaper case.* : : In Romesh Thapper case, the Apex Court ae Tc that public order was covered by the expression Security of State. rt held that the concept of "public order" was wider than ‘security of the State". ‘The expression ‘public order" is synonymous with "public peace, safety, and tranquillity."* The test for determining whether an act affects law an{ treet oF Public order is to see whether the act leads to the disturbance of the current life of the community, or whether the act affects merely an individual, the tranquillity of the society being undisturbed & oa State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 ; Santokh Si F Administration, AIR 1973.80 109% SC $98; Saniokh Singh v. Del ‘Ram Nandan vy. State, AIR 1959 All 101, State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, AIR Ram Nandan v. State, AIR 1959" All 101, See Jagan Nath y, Unic Country ‘was held wo be 2 rage Ae 1260 SC 678; wherein a Commonwealth Article 967() and the Constiie” Declaration ae nope! Atle 19(2) Also. see pinot etre Commonwealth eeerat®™ 88 to Foreign State Order, 1950. Purposes of the Constitution HY Not to be “a foreign tate” ior the 4. Romesh Thaper y. Stan 65. Ibid, of Madras, AIR 1959 86. Supde. Central Prison y. Ry 67. Kanu Bisune a of Wen Manohar Lohia, arg 1960 sc ga; of West Bengal, AIR 1979. ge BEB, AIR 1979 . ngal, 1973 Sc. 1749, 1C 1656; Kishore Mohan v. State Bees gs SC 124,RIGHT TO FREEDOM 237 order implies absence of viol pl es can peacefully ee and an orderly state of affirt ath public sofety.® Public safely as normal avocation of life. It Fi 00 ermal and internal dangers. Th ns the safety of the community PP abe [i mid_affect public order faa wus creating internal disorder or i? rahe ‘Government or its policy d public safety.” However, mere Pept © joes not necessarily disturb public fen i et wag that disturb publi at thin, public pe: : : ‘t yer efor communal disturbances ee lity disturbs pul ae Sata 73 or strikes promoted with the ject g workmen” would be offences disturbing alt order Pip pabulal ede wijure Code, 1908, "which empowers Magistrate i by a written Pr is suffici ; oro in that ee is sal ground for immediate prevention, eo Oe an tre ea persons to abstain from certain acts, if he such drei _ likely to prevent or tends t0 prevent @ i ity, or @ riot or an affray", was upheld and the 7 to prevent disorders was within the ambit Ooricle 1902) iemays thus, be stated that the valuable and cherished ri i : ight of freedom perk ef Hea ‘may, at times, have to be subordinated to enable Spordination of socia interests, needs and necessities, to preserve the very of democratic life, preservation of public order and rule of law.* ‘Though, restrictions can be imposed on utterance that have the tendency to lead to disorder, but it is necessary that there must be reasonable an per nexus OF relationship between the restriction and the public order. in Superintendent Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lobia,” the opreme Court miruck down Section 3 of the U. ‘Special Powers Act, 1992, Shh punished @ person ‘even if he inci ferson not to pay OF Yeeer the payment of Government dues. The Court said that there was nO proximate nexus between the incitement ‘and public order. The Com abserved : y, State of Maharashtra,” Section 144 of the if he is of the 8 oosince of public tr ated that anticipa the learned Advocate General fax or dues is a spark the argument of ovement, destroying ‘We cannot accept that instigation of a single individual not to pay ti which may in the Jong run ignite revolutionary ™ public order. errr Sia of Bhopal v. Arif, AIR 1974 SC_ 255; Basudev v. Res, AIR 1949 All 513. 69. Romesh Thaper ¥- AIR 1950 SC 124. 10. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 sc 129. 1. Raj Bahadur Goud ¥- state of Hyderabad, TAI 1953 Hyd 277 Jawali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387. 12 Mdha Limaye v. State of Bikar, AIR 1971 SC on ahi, "AIR 1960 SC 633- Noor Mohd. v. Rex, AIR 1949 All 120. 14 Dalbir v. State of Punjab, AIR ‘1962 SC 1106; Om Prak ‘Nag. 199. 75, AIR 1961 SC 884. See sls ath v. State of Bikar, ATR 1962 SC 958 8. Site of Karnataka v. PB. Thosadlie ‘9904 (4) SCALE 115: 77. AIR 1960 SC 633. 2496; Supdt. Central Prison ¥ ash v. Emperor, AIR 1948iV — COE right could not Be COntroligg 238 fandament® e argument that insta . sc i consid itself disturb public ony tia ; : SS tical and imei’ tax ve individual = to pa) rejected by the Cow | ° and expression can be in, en mn en of re urease is to restricting Posey i Le eae ‘or moralilY- oh a oral =f the interests of enc) oer and publications which eg 1 ame 8 lack of obscenity 7p, 7 The word "decency" se “obscenity” is identical with cae utterance or publication was inde The question as to when Tren v. State of Maharashtra, con, it D. 1860 prohibit the sale or din my obscene arose in Ranjit a 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code, doing of obscene acts or singing af iti matter or the ‘ : eae ee of obscene words, etc., : pe Places, i the appellant, a book seller in Bomba, In the instant case, ppell Pcie aes “ mu prosecuted and convicted under Section 292 of I. i a the book "Lady Chatterley's Lover", The Supreme Court applied the feat iad down in the English case R. v. Hicklin,” and upheld the conviction of thy appellant. The test laid down in Hicklin case is : e Whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene ; deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such inn, influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may mo”! us, @ matter would be obscene if it tends to rod ‘i Gems arouse lustful desire in the minds of substantial sescivon Public into whom hands the matter is likely to fall numbers of “78. Likewise Tao *Y: Director of Knu hel Hi in Sodht Shamsher Public Prosecutions" ld that a vitriolic ” Singh : of @ High Court ‘aa at a te ine 4 Pen, ATR ao54 : integrit C276, it was it in 5 He of Morin Bana nd ie, he it Ss * AIR 1965 Sq gp, 1” 2nd order. 881,rr RIGHT To FREEDOM pe Court said: ill 20 ec devency is not co ste to nd ony limit short ofan Ml ndzeney indeed ii dies ary descent man or womga YS that it inludes vaythine whieh an Ww Ould find to be shocking, disgusting ae ert Court further said that, in n nid that, in g i pehavioU? OF PTOPTIOLY, as that, gq Ply, the requirement of gt ive ground of the candidate’ st” @PPeal for votes should not be p82 Suitability Of a candidate for meyah1% Which by itself was no index tt? 99 (8) of the Representat; 2 petShiP of the legalature. Holdin ion protected under Article 19/9)" C°PI° Act, 1951, esratieicnally lection on the “oe Apex Cor i tan ee Ground of the candidate's alae i eal \d propriety of the s ape erceut Ly e society. (oP one right to freedom of speech and ey st contempt of Court. I particle 192) ‘The expression "contempt of Court" is defined in ad, 1971. Section 2(a) of the Act provides that Ceo Cee ae ae vil contempt or criminal contempt." The expression "Court" is not defined in the Contempt of Court pri It has, however, been held that in order to constitute a stout in the griet sense of the term, an essential condition is that the authority/body sinuld have, apart from having some of the trappings of a judicial tribunal, rover to give a decision or a definitive judgment which has finality and tuthoritativeness, which are the essential tests of a judicial pronouncement.** InC.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta,” the respondent, a party to an appeal pending before the Supreme Court, published and circulated a pamphlet in public, purporting to ascribe bias and dishonesty to Justice Shah. It read as saying that Justice Shah had made up his mind to give judgment against him, that he did not listen to the arguments, that he would procure erroneous judgment from his brother Judge. The Supreme Court held the respondent aiilty of committing the gross contempt of Court and the Judges See In Re Arundhati Roy, AIR 2002 SC 1375; Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, AIR 2003 SC 1467, 8%. CK Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1132. See also Narmada Bachao Andolan ¥. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 3345. % See for details, discussion under Article 129, infra, 562-66. % K Shamrao v. Asstt. Charity Commr., AIR 2003 SC 1828. ® AIR 1971 sc 132, LoINDIA j CONSTITUTION OF I CcONSTTUTON OF INDIA lained th; Court exp! at fi, me . "ey 20 a the ted to Articles 19(2), 123 on | : D.C, Saxen Id be subjec ith licence to make Unto, 2 | eee al nfused wi the judiciary," Nd, of speech and Ce founded or co uch less the j ae, ‘ ee ae iandeation 1 ume the posture ney are 2, allegations Ram not like to ae needs no improvement", | Though "Cou ‘ i if tionin free expression jg it ; that their functie liberty of criticism and ee it clear that Necessary to make Fi to id irresponsible alllega” be make unfounded eae d with utmost, Spear wiry" i abused. The effect prt ir, tae eranten sgeinat ni hal it must not hare of the court and an arg rs ene ae dignity and aut : imputation is lowering of tothe majesty of justice. i to tr: Defamation ch and expression cannot ae ees the law rele coat wa The word Peale of defamating in Article 19(2) it means is reputation and th = cig rae! Possesses a right to his doe as to injure body can 80 ai his freedom of speech and express : . tation, - ea 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Hee Offence of defamation, It Tecognises no distinction between defamat address to “ory Statement ress the ear or eyes and thus includes both slander and Tide Defamatory m: in writi an and, » cil ang erefore no Nother, ismanagement against the head issuing press statement: of Political nature, Hi conduct was held. to be detrimental to intereot, ests and prestige of tie 1996 SC 2481. See also In re Arundhati 2002 (2) Hargovind Dayal, AIR 1975 All 52, - ndra Sait v. M. 50a SCALE 538, Gy. 91. Also sce » ALC. Bar Association, 2005 AIR SCW 2449; exs SC 2015, ‘Wherein Mr. Namboodripad ing Temarks that ludiciary Jud, rere 9: s Were held to be ring in py restige of Judges "MR. Parashar %. Farooq Abdullah, AIR AIR 1974 go To, t"etokay, AIR 1978 'g¢ 727: Parades @ i In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1995 SC in this case, held the jendra Sail, criticising ‘© Murder case, guilty 95. & AIR 2003. g¢ 1467. See also MP.RIGHT TO FREEDOM 2a pint Using abusive language against seniors or assaulting superior wor! 7 - itutil fie, at “gjsmissing employees.” ones ears ne of a at to an Offence 1 pois ground os to Article 19(2) by the Constitution (First cagment) Act, 1051. oer has De ea to an offence" did not refer to sages 10 break . Thus, an incitement to a breach of every civil it ert necessarily contemplated by Article 19(2). is coversiemt and Integrity of India nd ves added to Article 19(2) by the Constitution (Sixteenth t) Act, 1963. The purpose is to guard the freedom of speech and amendinerom bel d to assai cxpression from being used to assail the sovereignty and territorial integrity Fine country. jition : Sedition is not mentioned in Clause (2) of Article 19. Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the offence of edition as follows : Whoever by words either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished... ‘The constitutional validity of Section 124-A of LP.C. was questioned Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar.” The Supreme Court held that Section 124-A was limited to acts involving an intention or a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of law and order or incitement to violence and was not violative of Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 19(2). B, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY [(Articles 19(1)(b) & 19 (3)] “Article 19(1)(6) guarantees to all citizens "the right to assemble peaceably and without arms". Clause (3) of Article 19 empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble in the interests of "the twereignty and integrity of India’ or "public order". The ground "sovereignty nd integrity of India” was inserted by the Constitution (16th Amendment) Act, 1963. SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE by Article 19(1)(b) is a corollary of the The, Tight of assembly" guaranteed Pv right to freedom of speech and expression" guaranteed under Article (01a), for the very purpose of holding an assembly is, to hold consultations, SW), for the very pur WW Devendrappa v~ Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation, 7, HR 1998 sc 1064. - See The Tribune, March 22, 2006. Alao see M/s, Bharat Cooking Coal Lid. v. 29, oe Colliery Kamgar Union, decided on 22-2-2005 ”. Ram Manohar Lohia v. Supdt. Central Prison, % AIR 1962 sc 958. Fatehgarh, AIR 1955 All 377.