ARTICLE 19 – FREEDOM

 Article 19(1) – provides 6b freedom

 (2) – (6) – limitations on the freedom guaranteed under article 19 (1)(a- g)

 Article 19(2) – state can impose reasonable restrictions on 8 ground

RESTRICTOINS:

(1) Sovereignty and integrity

(2) Security of the state

(3) Public order

(4) Contempt of court

(5) Defamation

(6) Incitement to an offence

 Article 19(2):---

• public order was added – 1st amendment 1951

• Sovereignty and integrity – added – 16th amendment 1963

• Court has the power to check the reasonableness.

{NOTE: when The rights are restricted, the quantum of restriction should be reasonable – nexus
between private rights and public purpose}

Article 19 (1)(a) : speech cases related:

 National anthem case -(Right to silence) – 1986

 Prevention of insult to national honour act 1971

 Sec (3)- intentionally prevent the singing of “Jana Gana Mana” or disturb
singing

 Imprisonment – 1 to 3 years and fine or both

 Article 51 (A) – its a fundamental duty also

 Kerala school – 3 student did not sing national anthem – so expelled from
the school

 The apex court verdict Bijoe emmanuel vs state of Kerala – national anthem
case

 Anuradha Bhasin Vs union of India 2020 – challenged

 Internet shutdown in J& K

 Freedom of press – press included in article 19(1)(a)

  NCRWC – recommended to add freedom of press explicitly

 Right to protect

 Shreya singhal vs union of India – 2015

 IT act 2000 – is the basic law in India for cyber matter

 Sec 66(A) – penalizes sending of offensive messages using computer – 1year

or 3 year – JAIL

 The PIL was field telling the above sec restricts article 19 (1)(a)

 SC struck down the section

 Sec 124 A – IPC – defines SEDITION as an offence committed when any person by
word/either spoken/written/ by sign – bring or attempt to bring contempt towards
government – feeling enmity ….Non-bailable offense – imprisonment up to 3 years. Barred
from government jobs and has to live without passport.

Article 20 – protection in respect of conviction for

offenses
 No EXPOST FACTO LAW: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of
law – commencement of the act

o No punishment – greater than -specified under the law

o Retrospective criminal legislation is illegal

 No person shall be prosecuted and punished – same offence – more than once – “DOUBLE
JEOPARDY”

 NO SELF INCRIMINATION – accused of any offense shall not be compelled to be a witness

against himself

Note

1. Doctrine of beneficial construction – if a law – abolishes an offense or if punishment is

reduced, it is applied retrospectively

2. Criminal laws cannot have retrospective effect( retrospective effect can be given only when
the punishment is reduced or punishment is cancelled)

3. Retrospective effect can be given to civil & tax law

4. Ratan lal vs state of Punjab – ex post facto law can be applied to reduce the punishment

5. Departmental punishment – does not come under double jeopardy

6. No self incrimination – grants “Rights to silence” by does not extend to physical witness

• “2010 – Selvi vs state of Karnataka”- use the “truth serum” is violation of article 20 &
21
 7. No constitutional protection to witness : Indian Evidence act 1872

• Sec 132 & sec 148 – confer protection to witness in civil and criminal cases

Article 21 – right to life and liberty

• Not only a fundamental rights by a human rights

• Heart of the constitution’

• Widest interpretation

• Available – both citizen and non citizens

• Does not include – Right to die

Cases related:

• Francis coralie vs UT of Delhi – 1981 – “Right to live with human dignity – nutrition, clothing
and shelter”

• Bandhua Mukti vs UOI – 1984 – bonded labour – free from exploitation

• Mohini Jain vs state of Karnataka – 1992 – Right to Education

• OLGA TELL18 – 1985 – Right to Livelihood

• Vishaka vs state of Rajasthan 1997 – Right against sexual harassment at workplace

• Baba ramdev case 2011 – Right to sleep

• Navtej singh johar vs UOI – sec 377 - decriminalize

 Euthanasia / mercy killing

• 2011 case of Aruna Sharbang – requested passive euthanasia . The case was moved to
larger bench in 2014

• Judgement in 2018 [5 judge bench]- allowed PASSIVE euthanasia

• Passive euthanasia – withdrawal of treatment, food or life support – leads to ending of

life

 Lynching – poonawalla vs UOI 2018

• Recommend Parliament to make law against lynching

• Lynching – origin – USA against black

• Evidence that a person is killed

• A group of 3 to 4 person involved in killing

• Killed in public

• Criminal law comes under current list – Manipur, West Bengal, etc has certain
laws against lynching

 Honour killing – Shakti vahini vs UOI 2018

 • Act of violence, killing/murder, committed by male family member against female family
member who bought dishonour to the family

 Right to privacy vs Puttaswamy case 2017

• Land mark judgement

• 9 judge bench

• Right to privacy – includes – right to physical, informational and choice privacy ( individuals
privacy is Not absolute – has to be balanced with possible interest)

ARTICLE 22 – Right against arrest and detention

[1]. Arrested person – informed – ground of arrest and allowed to consult a lawyer [Joginder kumar
Vs state of UP – detained person must be informed the cause of arrest]

[2] Arrested person – produced – 24hrs of his arrest to judicial magistrate – excluding journey time.
[if journey time exceed the police officer – guilty of illegal detention]

[3] This provision (1)(2) – not to enemy alien and person arrested under preventive detention.

[4] Arrested – preventive detention – should not exceed 3 months.

To extend more than 3 months:

• All the preventive detention must be sent to advisory board.

• Advisory board – judge of HC/ qualified to be judge of HC

[5] The person arrested – preventive detention can be provided opportunity to represent a legal
person.

[6] the authority may not disclose the ground of detention – if disclosed will affect public order

[7] parliament may by law :

1. Prescribe the circumstances cases during which preventive detention can be extended more
than 3 months

2. Parliament may decide the time to extend preventive detention.

3. Procedure to enquire by Advisory board decided by parliament

NOTE:

 Right against arrest – only to citizen

 Right against preventive detention – both citizen and non citizens (except enemy alien)

Preventive detention laws:

• MISA 1971-1978

• COFEPOSA – 1974

• TADA – 1985-1995
 • NSA – 1980

• Unlawful activity prevention act [UAPA] – 2008

Preventive detention:

• Entry 9 – list 1 – parliament

• Entry 3 – list 3 – parliament & state legislature to make law