Article 19:

Article 19 of COI is the backbone under part 3 of constitution. It guarantees to the citizen of India the
enjoyment of certain liberties. In the original constitution, there were seven freedoms In article 19(1)
but one of them namely, “the right to acquire, hold, dispose of property” under Article 19 (1) f has been
omitted by the constitution 44th amendment act, 1978 leaving only six freedoms in article 19(1). Now
there are six fundamental rights in the nature of freedom which are guaranteed to the citizens of India.

The text of Article 19 provides that all citizens shall have the right-

a. To freedom of speech and expression

b. To assemble peaceably and without arms

c. To form associations and unions

d. To move freely throughout the territory of India.

e. To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India and

f. To practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

The freedoms guaranteed under Article 19(1) of Constitution of India are available to Indian citizens
only. In other words, a non citizen or a foreigner cannot claim the fundamental freedoms guaranteed
under Article 19(1). Moreover, citizens under Article 19 mean only natural persons and not legal or
juristic persons. Thus, a statutory corporation or a company registered under the Indian companies Act
being an artificial person cannot enforce these rights. The fundamental freedoms under Article 19 are
available against the state only. These freedoms are not absolute or exhaustive. They are subject to
various limitations or restrictions which must be reasonable and imposed for public good. In A.K.
Gopalan V. State of Madras AIR 1951 the Supreme Court held that it is only the courts and not the
legislature who are competent to adjudicate whether a restriction on these freedoms is reasonable or
not. There must be a proper balance between the freedoms and the social control permitted by clauses
2 to 6 of Article 19.

Freedom of speech and expression:

In India, according to Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of
speech and expression.

The phrase freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one’s convictions and opinions
freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. It includes the expression of
one’s ideas through any communicable medium or visible representation, such as gestures, signs and
alike. According to Hulbary’s laws of England, freedom of expression incorporates both the write to
receive and to express idea and information and the secrecy of private communications. Freedom of
speech and expression also includes the right to propagate and publish the views of other people. It also
includes the right to acquire and import ideas and information about matters of common interest.
In Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India AIR 1978 the Supreme Court held that if the state action sets a
barrier to its citizen’s freedom of expression, it will be an infringement or violation of the freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a). The freedom of speech and expression is a
bulwark of democratic form of government. The fundamental principle involved in the right to freedom
of speech and expression is people’s right to know. In democratic state, participation of people in the
administration ensures that the government’s function with full caution in their action. In Life insurance
Corporation of India V. Manu bhai D. shah (19992) The Supreme Court examined the scope and
extends the freedom of speech and expression. The court of said that freedom of speech and expression
must be construed broadly to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by words of mouth or
writings or through audio visual instrumentalities. In other words it includes the right to propagate the
view through the print media or through any other communication channel. The print media, the radio
and the tiny screen play a vital role for the growth of healthy democracy. Freedom to air one’s views is
the life line of democratic institution and any attempt to stiffen or suffocate this right both be a death
kneel to democracy and would usher in autography or dictatorship. The modern communication
mediums, the advance public interest by informing the public of the developments that have taken
place and by education the voters it plays a significant role for the vibrant functioning of a democracy.
Therefore, in any democratic setup, dissemination of views and views for popular consumption is a must
at any attempt to deny the same must be frowned upon unless it falls within the mischief of Article 19
(2) of the constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the right to propagate one’s views
through print media or through any other communication channel radio; TV is included within the
expression of freedom of speech and expression.

There is no specific provision in our constitution guarantying the freedom of press. Freedom of press
means absence of interference by the state except in so far as it is authorized by the constitution and by
law. Freedom of press is essential to political liberty. When a man cannot freely convey their thought to
another, no freedom is secured. Lord Mansfield says liberty of the press consists in printing without any
license subject to consequences of law.IN Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras AIR 1950, the supreme
court held that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and
therefore authorizing the government to impose a ban upon entry and circulation of a journal in a state
in restrictive of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(10(a).

In Sakal Papers V. Union of India AIR 1962, the supreme court interpreted the scope of Article 19(1)(a) to
include within its fold the freedom of the press which is regarded as species of which freedom of
expression is the genus. Thus, in India the freedom of the press glows from freedom of speech and
expression. IN Brij Bhusan V. State of Delhi AIR 1950, it has been held that freedom of speech and
expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas which is ensured by the freedom of circulation and
that the liberty of the press consisted in allowing no previous restraint upon the publication.

Freedom of press has been a cherished right of all democratic countries. There cannot be any
interference with that freedom in the name of public interest. The purpose of the press is to advance
the public interest by publishing and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make
responsible judgments. The newspaper not only conveys news but also ideas, opinion and ideologies. It
is the primary duty of the court’s to uphold the freedom of the press and invalidate all laws or
administrative actions which interfere with it contrary to the constitutional mandates. But, the right of
freedom of speech and expression is a qualified right and the state may impose reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of this rights in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the
state, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency or morality in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Ex post facto laws:

Article 20 of The Constitution of India provides an important safeguard to a person accused of crimes,
namely protection against ex post facto laws. An Ex post facto law is a law which imposes penalties
retrospective on acts already done and increases the penalty for acts. Under the American constitution,
the term ex post facto law meant a law which imposes punishment for an act which was not punishable
at the time of the commission of the offence or impose additional punishment to what was prescribed
at the time of the commission of the offence or change in the rule of evidence or procedure requiring
conviction. Article 20(1) of the constitution of India provides that no person shall be convicted of any
offence except for the violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as
an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the
law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. The protection of Article 20(1) cannot be
claimed in the case of preventive detention or demanding security from a person. It clearly applies when
the accused is convicted of an offence. In Nand Kishore V. commissioner (1982) it has been held that
Article 20(1) is not applicable in preventive detention cases as there is no conviction of detainee for any
offence committed by him and sentence imposed.

The legislature in India is vested with the power of law making. The majority of laws are prospective in
their operation. But, sometimes, the legislature may give retrospective effect to a law that is to say, to
bring within the operation of the law, not only future acts or omissions but also acts or omissions
committed even prior to the enactment of the law in question. Though ordinarily a legislature can enact
prospective as well as retrospective laws, according to Article 20(1), a legislature shall not be competent
to make a criminal law retrospective so as to provide that a person may be convicted for an act which
was not an offence under the law in force at the time of the commission of that act.

Enhancement of penalty with retrospective effect was prohibited by Article 20(1). In Joseph V. State of
Mysore (1974) it has been observed that Article 20(1) of The Constitution places an embargo on the
power of the legislature to enhance the punishment or penalty subsequent to the commission of the
offence and giving the same a retrospective effect. When the penalty is enhanced with retrospective
effect, it is hit by Article 20(1) of The Constitution.

In Kedarnath V. State of West Bengal AIR 1958, the accused committed an offence in 1947. While the
trial was going on, state government amended the original act making the penalty double in 1949. The
magistrate punished him as per the amended act of 1949. The Supreme Court quashed the additional
punishment imposed against the accused under the amended act of 1949 but retained the punishment
under the old act of 1947.