Respondent :

Issues:
 Whether ban on video by election commission of Eire constitutes an
unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under
article 19(1)(a) of constitution of india

Part III of the Constitution guarantees the Fundamental Right along with the
exception that prevents such right from being an absolute right and Rules fall under
reasonable restrictions.

THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND

EXPRESSION AS IT FALLS UNDER THE RESTRICTION PROVIDED
UNDER ART. 19(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION.

It is humbly pleaded before the Court of Law that the Election commision was
justified in making of such Rule as the law qualifies being reasonable as it falls
under the ambit of one of the restrictions of freedom of speech and expression.

It is observed by the Hon’ble Justice Patanjali Shastri that,1 “Man as a rational

being desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be
controlled, regulated....”

It is pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that the Rule of legislature that prohibits
video on social media is reasonable in its nature. A restriction that promotes
directive principles is generally regarded as reasonable i.e. the restriction must
receive its reorientation from Directive Principles.2 In the present case, the
restriction indirectly aims to achieve Art. 38 of the Constitution which aims at
social order whereas telecast of video on social video may result into public
instigation destroying the social order. Restrictions imposed due to implementation
of Directive Principles may deem to be reasonable. Moreover, in case of striking a
balance between rights of an individual party to the right of citizens, the former
becomes insignificant.Since there is no fixed standard for reasonableness, each
case must be decided on its own merits and thus it is pleaded that these merits
should be taken into consideration.
1
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
2
Kasturi Lal Laxmi Reddy v State of J&k., (1980) 4 SCC 1
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTION OF
PUBLIC ORDER.

It is humbly pleaded before the Court of Law that the restrictions imposed by
means of Rules of procedure of the House falls under the ambit of one of the
restrictions present under Art. 19(2) i.e., public order.

Likewise in judgement of the case of Ramesh thoper Vs State of Madras It has

to be noted that this judgement came during the phase while post-constitutional
India was still in its nascent stage. But the rationale behind this judgement set a
healthy precedent both in terms of protecting press freedom and defining the scope
of reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights as provided in Part III of the
Constitution. The Court by putting restrictions on the powers of the State to
interfere with individual rights paved the way for other judgements that
championed the cause of the individual against the might of the State which further
led to immense confidence among the masses in the high levels of integrity among
the judicial branch of the government.
The apex Court has defined ‘public order’ as “the state of tranquility which
prevails among the members of society as a result of internal regulation, enforced
by the government which they have established.” 3 The state is entitled to curb
freedom of speech and expression if it is likely to trigger communal antagonism
and hatred. The test for determining whether an act affects law and order or public
order is to see whether the act leads to the disturbances of the current life of the
community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or whether it
affects merely an individual, being the tranquility of the society undisturbed. It is
humbly pleaded that the passionate and instigating speeches with malice political
intent may lead to enticement to some section of the society and internal
disturbance which would affect the public order4. .

It is humbly pleaded before the Court of the law that the video which was uploaded
by orange party IT cell on social media was harmfull in nature as the distress
video shows a catholic young teenage girl returning home late at evening in a
fearfull manner and particularly trying to show that she was walking through a
protestant colony can cause a communal hatred and violence between two
3
Ramesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
4
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129
religions and therefore state is entitled to ban a video and curb their freedom of
speech and expression as it is likely to trigger communal hatred and violence
among them.