INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of India declares certain Fundamental Rights for individuals under Part III,
Articles 12 to 35. Some of these rights are only for the citizens where as others are available
equally to the non-citizens also. These fundamental rights are inviolable subject to the
qualification defined in the constitution itself. It establishes that no law, ordinance, custom,
usage or administration order can abridge or take away a fundamental right. These rights are
binding upon both legislative and the executive and any law, which violates the fundamental
right, is void. A fundamental right cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment,
if it forms the basic structure of the constitution. These fundamental rights are provided in
different forms in the constitution, some are express declarations like the rights under Articles
25, 26, 29(1), 30(1) and 32, some are prohibitary declarations like under Articles 18(1),
23(1), 24 and 28(1), some others are specific forms of restrictions on state action like under
Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22(1), 27 and 28, whereas some others require state action like
Articles 15(4), 16(3), 16(4), 16(5), 22(7), 23(2), 25(2), 30(1)(a). More over some of the
fundamental rights are positive declarations and simultaneously provides for restrictions upon
these rights like under Articles 19(1) and 19(2) to 19(6).
The constitution declares that the state shall not make any law which take away or abridges
the fundamental rights and that to the extent of inconsistency such laws shall be void.
Fundamental rights, thus limit the exercise of power by the legislature. The constitution
envisages a ‘welfare state’ which should be achieved by the Union and the States subject to
limitations on their power in the form of fundamental rights. The constitution gives power to
individuals as a fundamental right under Article 32 to move the Supreme Court for remedy
upon any infringement of a fundamental right and under Article 226 the constitution confers
power upon the High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of any of the rights
under Part III of the constitution.

Article 19(1)(a) secures to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression. The freedom
of speech and expression means the right to express one’s conviction and opinions freely by
word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. Freedom of speech is the
bulwark of a democratic government and it attaches great importance to this freedom,
because without the freedom of speech appeal to reason, which is the basis of democracy,
cannot be made. Freedoms of speech opens up channels of free discussions of issues and play
a crucial role in public opinion on social, political and economic matters.

Page | 1

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2145117
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2145117
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase, ‘speech and expression’ of having a
wide connotation and thus many a rights not expressly found under the article’s plain words
has been recognised. Thus in this paper an attempt is made to find out as to how relevant and
effective has been such dynamic interpretation of the right.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION; RECEIVE AND DISSEMINATE

The right to ‘freedom of speech and expression’ in Article 19(1) (a) has been held to include
the right to acquire information and disseminate the same. It includes the right to
communicate it through any available media whether print or electronic or audio-visual, such
as ads, movie, articles or speech etc. This freedom includes the freedom to communicate or
circulate one’s opinion without interference to as large a population in the country, as well as
abroad, as it is possible to reach. The Supreme Court giving a broad dimension to Article
19(1)(a) said that freedom of speech not only includes communication but also receipt of
information as they are the two sides of the same coin.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain1 the Supreme Court held that Article 19(1) (a) not
only guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it also ensures and comprehends the right
of the citizen to know, the right to receive information regarding matters of public concern.
The government is not the owner, but timely trusted with rights of the real beneficiary on the
estate of the state. Similar views were expressed, while upholding that “right to know is
implicit in right of free speech and expression, and disclosure of information regarding
functioning of the Government must be the rule.”2
Further in Secretary, Ministry of I&B, Government of India v. Cricket Association of
Bengal,3 the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that the freedom of speech and
expression includes the right to acquire information and to disseminate the same.

In the Tata Press Case4 the Supreme Court concluded that the “commercial speech” cannot be
denied the protection of Article 19(1) (a) merely because the same is issued by businessmen.
“Commercial speech” is a part of freedom of speech guaranteed under the Article 19(1) (a).
The public at large has a right to receive the “commercial speech” and the article protects the
right of an individual “to listen, read and receive” the “commercial speech”. The protection of
the article is available both to the speakers as well as the recipient of the speech.

1
AIR 1975 SC 865,884:(1975) 4 SCC 428
2
S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Suppl. SCC 87 at 273
3
AIR 1995 SC 1236; infra, 1177-78
4
AIR 1995 SC 2438, 2446: (1995) 5 SCC 139

Page | 2

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2145117
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2145117
RIGHT TO KNOW

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Trivedi, M.P and Others v. Union of India,5 observed
“in modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know
about the affairs of the government which, having been elected by them, seek to formulate
sound policies of governance aimed at their welfare”. The Court further observed
“democracy expects openness and openness is concomitant of a free society and the sunlight
is a best disinfectant.” The Delhi High Court emphasised that the right to receive information
acquires great significance in the context of elections6 and ruled that the Election
Commission shall secure the antecedents of the candidates including assets, education etc. for
the perusal of the voters. This is not an extra qualification imposed by the High Court but
what the Hon’ble High Court was seeking to achieve is that a voter after knowing the
background of the candidate will vote properly. On appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed
with the Delhi High Court and upheld the right of a voter to know about the antecedents of a
candidate as a part of his fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a). Democracy cannot
survive without free and fairly informed voters. Subsequently the Central Government
amended the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by passing the Representation of the
People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002.

The Bombay High Court in its unreported judgment in Bombay Environmental Action Group
v. Pune Cantonment Board, A.S. Writ Petition No.2733 of 1986 granted a recognized
environmental group has a right to examine municipal permissions granted to private
builders. In a different case between the same parties, Bombay Environmental Action Group
v. Pune Cantonment Board, SLP (Civil) No. 11291 of 1986. The Supreme Court extended the
right to know to all environment groups, whether recognized or not. The Brundtland Report
on the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 recognized free access
to relevant information and the availability of alternative sources of technical expertise to
provide an informed basis for public discussion.

Buoyed by recent development wherein legal vibrancy is evident in the drafting of nearly half
a dozen drafts on the Right to Information, any environmentalist should be hopeful of a
statutory recognition of his right to be informed and to be allowed to inspect documents. It is
perhaps unfortunate that none of the drafts have detailed laid down any guideline as regards

5
(1997) 4 SCC 306: (1997) 1 SCJ 697
6
Association for democratic reforms v. Union of India, AIR 2001 Del.126,137

Page | 3

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2145117

this issue. However, given the extent to which the right to environment is deep rooted in the
Indian milieu, it is only axiomatic that a guarantee of the right to information in environment
and related matters has to follow.

The Bombay High Court distinguished between the ordinary citizen looking for information
and groups of social activists thus: ‘In this writ petition we are not dealing with any Tom,
Dick and Harry, but we are dealing with an action group which is interested in protecting the
environmental and ecological balance of the city. People’s participation in the movement for
the protection of the environment cannot be over-emphasized... The apprehension expressed
by the Respondent that if such a right is given to a citizen, then the working of the
Cantonment Board will not only be affected but will come to a stand-still is also without any
substance. To say the least, in this writ petition we are not dealing with the right of each and
every citizen generally. We would like to confine ourselves to the rights of recognized social
action groups whose activities deserve to be appreciated.’ The court appeared to be creating a
new form of elite – social activists participating in groups.

RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

The emerging judicial view is that the freedom of speech can be exercised by a person subject
to keeping the level of noise pollution within bearable limits. Although noise pollution has
not been mentioned in Article 19(2) as a ground for which reasonable restrictions can be
imposed on the freedom of speech, the courts have implied this limitation from Article 19
(1)(a) itself. The courts have argued that freedom of speech includes the freedom to remain
silent. The courts raised the question: can a person exercise his right, so as to interfere with
the freedom of others? The courts have answered this question as follows: when a person
enjoys his rights under Article 19(1)(a), he must do so causing very minimum inconvenience
to others. A person cannot claim his freedom of speech so as to interfere with the human
rights and Fundamental Rights of others.7

In K. Venu v. Director General of Police8, a single Judge of the Kerala High Court expressed
the view that he was not inclined too hold that the right to use loudspeakers was Fundamental
Right in itself on the ground the ground that sound pollution was an accepted danger and
indiscriminate use of loudspeakers could not be permitted. Further in P.A. Jacob v.

7
New Road Brothers v. Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, AIR 1999 Ker 262
8
AIR 1990, Ker 344

Page | 4

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2145117

Superintend of Police, Kottayam,9 the Kerala High Court has taken noise pollution into
account saying, “exposure to high noise is a known risk.” The Court has observed: “if an
absolute right is conceded in this behalf, it will be an unlimited charter for aural aggression”.
“However wide a right is, it cannot be as wide as to destroy similar or other rights in others”.
And, further the High Court has said: “The right to speech implies the right to silence. It
implies freedom, not to listen, and not be forced to listen” The Calcutta High Court has
imposed restrictions on the use of loudspeakers at the time of azan on the ground of noise
pollution. The Court has stated that excessive noise certainly causes pollution in society.
Under Article 19(1) (a), read with Article 21, the citizens have a right of a decent
environment and have a right to live peacefully, right to sleep at night and a right to leisure
which are all necessary ingredients of the right to life guaranteed. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has ruled in Church of God v. K.K.R.M. Welfare Association10 that the question of
religious freedom does not arise as no religion requires that prayers be performed through
voice amplifiers. The Court directed the guidelines framed by the Government under the
relevant rules framed under Environment Protection Act, 1986, must be followed by the
concerned authorities.11

In Bijoe Emanuel v. State of Kerala,12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court said, “We may at once say
that there is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor do we
think that it is disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully
when the National Anthem is sung does not join the signing. It is true Art.51-A (a) of the
Constitution enjoins a duty on every citizen of India “to abide by the Constitution and respect
its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.” Proper respect is
shown to the National Anthem by standing up when the National Anthem is sung. It will not
be right to say that disrespect is shown by not joining in the singing”

RIGHT TO EDUCATION

The Hon’ble Supreme observed, “We are in a democratic polity where dissemination of
information is the foundation of the system. Keeping the citizens informed is an obligation of
the Government. It is equally the responsibility of society to adequately educate every

9
AIR 1993 Ker 1
10
AIR 2000 SC 2773 : (2000) 7 SCC 282
11
Om Biranguna Religious Society v. State of West Bengal, (1996)100 Cal WN 617
12
(1986) 3 SCC 615 : AIR 1987 SC 748

Page | 5

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2145117

component of it so that the social level is kept up.”13 The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus felt the
necessity of environment education and directed the concerned authorities to make it
mandatory for the cinema halls to show slides upon environment education before the
exhibition of movies. Further the apex court directed the government media, the Doordarshan
and the All India Radio to ensure environment related programs to educate the masses. In a
wider interpretation to the phrase ‘speech and expression’ the apex court held that it is a
fundamental right to be educated in the matters of environment conservation and directed the
Universities and the education boards to make ‘environment education’ as a compulsory
subject in their courses.

THE NATIONAL FLAG ISSUE

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Naveen Jindal,14 held that right to fly the
National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within the
meaning of Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution, being an expression and manifestation of his
allegiance and feelings and sentiments of pride for the nation. But the same is not an absolute
right but a qualified one, subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (2) of Article 19 of
the constitution. The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 regulate the use of the National Flag.

CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, over the years has given a very broad and liberal meaning to the
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. These interpretations have led to recognise
various rights like, right to receive and disseminate information, right to know, right to
remain silent, right to receive education and as well right to fly the National Flag freely with
respect and dignity as expressions of one’s feeling of pride for the nation. These emerging
rights are derived from the broad meaning which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given to the
phrase ‘speech and expression’ under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court by attributing these connotations to the liberal interpretation of Article
19(1)(a) is doing a great service to the nation by rendering the meaning to the fundamental
rights which the framers of the Constitution would ever desired of .....

13
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1992 SCC 382
14
(2004) 2 SCC476

Page | 6

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2145117