Article 19: Protection of Certain Rights

regarding freedom of Speech, etc.

 Art. 19 (1)
• All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or 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) Omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation,
trade or business
 Art. 19 (1) (a)
• "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion
and expression; the right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to
seek and receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers" proclaims the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (1948).
 Art. 19(1) (a)
• According to law, a suspect/accused is entitled to a
fair procedure and is presumed to be innocent till
proved guilty in a Court of law.
• None can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice his
case by the time it goes to trial.
• Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees
freedom of speech and expression and Art. 19(2)
permits reasonable restrictions to be imposed by
statute for the purposes of various matters including
‘Contempt of Court’.
 Art. 19(1) (a)
• Art. 19(2) does not refer to ‘administration of justice’ but
interference of the administration of justice is clearly
referred to in the definition of ‘criminal contempt’ in sec.
2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in sec. 3
thereof as amounting to contempt.
• Therefore, publications which interfere or tend to
interfere with the administration of justice amount to
criminal contempt under that Act and if in order to
preclude such interference, the provisions of that Act
impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech,
such restrictions would be valid.
 Art. 19(1) (a)
• Contempt of Court Act, 1971
A finding of being in contempt of court may result
from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court,
showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the
proceedings through poor behavior, or publication
of material or non-disclosure of material, which in
doing so deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A
judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail
for someone found guilty of contempt of court.
 Art. 19 (1)(a)
• Kunal Kamra’s case, 2020
- “Honour has left the building (Supreme Court)
long back” and “The Supreme Court of this
Country is the most Supreme joke of this
country”.  
 Art. 19 (2)
• Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect
the operation of any existing law, or prevent the
State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
the right conferred by the said sub clause in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or
in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.
 Art. 19 (2)
• Reasonable restrictions under these heads can be imposed
only by a duly enacted law and not by an executive action.
• Recent Case
- The court granted relief to Republic TV Editor-in-chief
Arnab Goswami seeking quashing of FIRs filed in
connection with a TV show where he questioned Congress
President Sonia Gandhi over the lynching of two sadhus
and their driver in Palghar in Maharashtra. On May 19,
2020 the Supreme Court rejected all but one FIR and said
that filing of multiple FIRs relating to the same incident
constituted “an abuse of process and must be quashed.
 Art. 19 (1) (a)
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
- The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of
the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to
restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on
grounds of violating the freedom of speech
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
of India.
- The Court further held that the Section was not
saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction' on
the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). 
 Art. 19 (1) (a)
• Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, made it a punishable
offence for any person to
"send, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing
character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of
causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury,
criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making
use of such computer resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of
causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the
addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.“
 Art. 19
• Test of Reasonable Restrictions:
1. Should not be arbitrary or of an excessive
nature beyond what is required in the
interests of the public.
2. Judicial Review of such restrictions.
3. Balance between individual rights and social
control
4. Each case is to be judges on its own merit.
 Art. 19
• Restriction which is imposed for securing the objects
laid down in DPSPs may be regarded as reasonable
restriction.
• Objective standard is to be applied.
• Rational relation with the object which the Legislature
seeks to achieve and must not be in excess of that
object.
• Reasonableness of a restriction is to be determined
and not the reasonableness of the law.
• Restrictions may amount to prohibition.
 Art. 19
• Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950
SC 124
“Freedom of speech and of the Press lay at the
foundation of all democratic organisations, for
without free political discussion no public
education, so essential for the proper functioning
of the process of popular government, is
possible.”
 Art. 19
• Facts of the Case:
- The Petitioner published a few articles in his weekly
English magazine called Crossroads.
- As he was writing these articles, a communist
movement was gathering steam in parts of Madras and
the authorities felt that the petitioner’s articles will not
be helpful with regard to stopping the enthusiasm
among the members of the said communist movement.
- In the month of March 1950, the Government of
Madras by virtue of an order imposed a ban on the
entry and circulation of the magazine in these areas.
 Art. 19
- The order was issued pursuant to Section 9(1-A) of the
Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 which
empowered the government to prohibit the
circulation, sale or distribution of the journal in certain
parts of the province of Madras for the purpose of
ensuring ‘public safety’ or preserving ‘public order.’
- Aggrieved by this government order Mr. Thapar
approached the Supreme Court with the contention
that the impugned order infringed upon
his fundamental right to free speech and expression.
 Art. 19
• Issues
1. Whether the order under Section 9(1-A) of the
Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act was in
violation of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution or
did it fall within the restrictions provided in Article
19(2).
2. Whether the impugned provision was void under
Article 13(1) of the Constitution by virtue of it being
in violation of the fundamental right of free speech
and expression.
 Art. 19
• Judgment
- The freedom of speech and expression includes
freedom of propagation of ideas that can only
be ensured by circulation.
- The Court ruled that it was clear that the
impugned order passed was in violation of
Article 19(1) (a) unless Section 9(1-A) of the
impugned Act is saved by the reservation
provided for in Article 19(2).
 Art. 19
- The Court finally invoked the Doctrine of Severability
whereby it is seen whether severing or removing a
provision from legislation changes the legislative
intent behind the enactment and if not, the
impugned provision may be declared invalid.
- After applying the rule of severability to Section 9(1-
A) of the impugned Act, the majority held it to be
void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution and thus
ultra vires as it was inconsistent with the provisions
of Part III of the Constitution.
 Art. 19
• Right to Information Act, 2005
- To promote openness, transparency and
accountability in administration.
- Appointment of Public Information Officers
under the Act.
- Certainly strengthens the freedom of press.
 Art. 19
•  Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala, (1986) 3
SCC 615
• Facts:
- In India, the Prevention of Insults to National
Honour Act, 1971 is applicable in case of the
desecration or insult of India’s National Flag and
other national symbols, the National Anthem,
the map of India including contempt to the
Indian Constitution.
 Art. 19
- The Head Mistress expelled the students from the school
under the instructions of the Deputy Inspector of Schools for
not singing national anthem.
- The father of the children requested the headmistress to
allow the children to attend their classes in school till they
received a government order/decision in the matter. The
Headmistress expressed her inability to do so. 
- The objection of the Emmanuel children was not the
language or the sentiments of the National Anthem. They did
not sing the National Anthem, but they always stood in when
the National Anthem was sung to show their respect to it.
 Art. 19
• Issues
- If the expulsion of the 3 students from a school in
Kerala is justified under Kerala Education Act (Section
36), Kerala Education Rules(Rule 6 and 9) and Section
3 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act
1971?
- Whether the expulsion of the children from the
school are consistent with the rights guaranteed
under Article 19(1) and Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution?
 Art. 19
• Judgment
- Held that, Article 19(a), which guarantees freedom of
speech, and Article 25, which gives the right to
freedom of conscience to freely profess, practice and
propagate religion are fundamental rights which are
guaranteed to every citizen.
- The three students were not guilty of disrespect to the
National Anthem just because they refused to sing it.
Moreover, they did stand in respect whenever the
National Anthem was being sung. 
 Art. 19
• Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon,
(1996) 4 SCC 1
- The Respondent filed a writ for quashing the
certification of exhibition given to the film
‘Bandit Queen’.
- The depiction was abhorrent and
unconscionable and a slur on the womanhood
of India.
 Art. 19
- The Respondents and his community had
been depicted in a most depraved way
specially in the scene of rape which was
suggestive of the moral depravity of the Gujjar
community.
- The High Court held that the film was obscene
and quashed the order of the Tribunal.
 Art. 19
- The Supreme Court allowing the apppeal held
that the certificate issued to the film Bandit
Queen upon conditions imposed by the
Appellate Tribunal is valid and is therefore
restored.
- Held that the film must be judged in its
entirety from the point of view of its overall
impact.
 Art. 19
• Decency or morallity
- The test of obscenity is ‘whether the tendency
of matter charged as obscene is to deprave
and corrupt those whose minds are open to
such immoral influences.
- R v. Hicklin’s Test
- S. 292 to S. 294 of IPC
 Art. 19
• Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1965 SC 881
- The court upheld the conviction of the
appellant, a book seller who was prosecuted
u/s 292 of IPC, 1860.
 Art. 19
• The appellant, a bookseller, sold a copy of "Lady Chatterley's
Lover“ and was convicted under s. 292, Indian Penal Code.
• In his appeal to the Supreme Court he contended that :
(i) The section was void because it violated the freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.,
(ii) Even if the section was valid, the book was not obscene
and
(iii) It must be shown by the prosecution that he sold the book
with the intention to corrupt the purchaser.
 Art. 19
• Held that the section embodies a reasonable
restriction upon the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Art. 19 and does not
fall outside the limits of restriction permitted by
cl. (2) of the Article.
• The section seeks no more than the promotion
of public decency and morality.
• The book must be declared obscene within the
meaning of s. 292, Indian Penal Code.
 Art. 19
• The court relied upon the Hicklin Test i.e. the tendency of the matter
charged as obscene must be to deprave and corrupt those, whose
minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a
publication of the sort may fall. In judging a work, stress should not
be laid upon a word here and a word there, or a passage here and a
passage there.
• Though the work as a whole must be considered, the obscene matter
must be considered by itself and separately to find out whether it is
so gross and its obscenity so decided that it is likely to deprave and
corrupt those whoseminds are open to influences of this sort.
• The section does not make the book-seller's knowledge of obscenity
an ingredient of the offence and the prosecution need not establish
it.
 Art. 19
• Article 19(1)(b) thus includes the right to hold meetings and
to take out processions.
• However, this right is not absolute but restrictive in nature.
• The assembly must be non-violent and must not breach
public peace.
• Disorderly and/or riotous assembly will not be protected
under Article 19(1)(b) and clause 3 of article 19 would then
come into picture.
• Reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(3) are in
the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India or public
order.
 Art. 19
• Section 144(6) gives the government the power to
make an assembly of 5 or more people in certain
cases an unlawful assembly.
• Chapter viii of the Indian Penal Code, S. 141 lays
down that the conditions when an assembly
becomes ‘unlawful’.
• According to this section, an assembly of five or
more persons becomes an unlawful assembly if the
common object of the persons comprising the
assembly is-
 Art. 19
(a) to repel and resist the execution of any law or legal
process,
(b) to commit any sort of mischief or criminal trespass,
(c) to obtain the possession of any property using force,
(d) to impel and coerce a person to do what  he is not legally
bound to do or omit which he is legally entitled to do, 
(e) to overawe, that is, to appall and astonish the
government by means of criminal force or show of
criminal force or any public servant in the exercise of his
lawful powers.
 Art. 19
• CAN THE STATE RESTRICT A CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO PROTEST?
- Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (UOI)
and Ors. 2012 CriLJ 3516.
- The incident at Ramlila Maidan, Delhi where Baba Ramdev and his
supporters were carrying on a protest against corruption and black
money.
- Their protest was against the government who failed in taking
effective steps to curb the menace of black money and corruption
in India.
- The apex court has held that the protest was
peaceful. Satyagraha which is beyond the concept of ‘passive
resistance’ forms the essence of democracy.
 Art. 19
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. The Union of
India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 2018 SC 3476
• Ongoing Farmer’s Protest,
- The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce
(Promotion and Facilitation) Act,
- The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act and
- The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection)
Agreement on Price Assurance, and Farm Services
Act. 
 Art. 19
• Shaheen Bagh’s Case, Amit Sahni vs. Commissioner
of Police and Ors. AIR 2020, SC 4704.
- “The right to protest cannot be any time and
everywhere. There may be some spontaneous
protests but in case of prolonged dissent or
protest, there cannot be continued occupation of
public place affecting rights of others,” a three-
judge Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
declined the review petitions.
 Art. 19
- The court had concluded that protesters should express
their dissent only in designated areas chosen by the
administration.
- Right to dissent should not hamper right of movement of
the public. Protests should not become a nuisance.
- Though the judgment had upheld the right to peaceful
protest against a law, it unequivocally made it clear that
public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied, and that
too indefinitely.
• The right of the protester has to be balanced with the right
of the commuter.
 Art. 19
• Art. 19(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said
clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, in the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India or public order, reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub clause.
 Art. 19
• Art. 19 (1) (c): Guarantees to all its citizens the
right “form associations and unions”.
• Art. 19 (4): The State may by law impose
reasonable restrictions on this right in the
interest of public order, or morality or the
sovereignty and integrity of India.
 Art. 19
• Haji Mohd. v. District Board Malda, AIR 1958 Cal
401
- A restriction requiring a teacher to take prior
permission to engage in political activities.
- Government order requiring municipal teachers
not to join unions other than those officially
approved was held to impose prior restraint on
the right to form association and union, hence
invalid.
 Art. 19
• Art. 19 (1) (d): Guarantees to all citizens of
India the right “to move freely throughout the
territory of India.”
• Art. 19 (5): Reasonable restrictions:
- In the interests of the general public.
- For the protection of the interest of Scheduled
Tribes
 Art. 19
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushalya, AIR 1964
SC 211
The Supreme Court held that the right to
movement of prostitutes may be restricted on
the grounds of public health and in the
interests of public morals.
 Art. 19
• Ajay Canu v. Union of India, (1988) 4 SCC 156
- The Petitioner challenged the validity of Rule
wherein wearing of helmets by the drivers of 2
wheelers was made compulsory, on the ground
that the same is violative of Art. 19 (1)(d).
- Held, the rule was valid as it was made for the
good of the people and imposed reasonable
restriction on the freedom of movement.
 Art. 19
• Art. 19 (1) (e): Every citizen of India has the
right to reside and settle in any part of the
territory of India
• Art. 19 (5): Reasonable restrictions
• During Emergency
• Foreigner’s Act, 1964 and 1965
 Art. 19
• Art. 19 (1)(g): Guarantees that all citizens shall have
the right “to practice any profession, or to carry on
any occupation, trade or business.”
• Art. 19 (6): Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said
clause shall affect the operation of any existing law
in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from
making any law imposing, in the interests of the
general public, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
clause, and,
 Art. 19
Nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to,
or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary
for practising any profession or carrying on any
occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation
owned or controlled by the State, of any trade,
business, industry or service, whether to the
exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise
 Art. 19
• Article 301 helps in maintaining economic
unity, in both aspects intra as well as inter
states, in our country. The main objective
behind these articles is to promote free trade,
commerce and inter-course activities within
the territory of India.
 Art. 19
• Kuldeep Singh, J has defined the four expressions, i.e.,
profession, occupation, trade and business in Sodan Singh
v. New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1989 SCC 155.
- Profession’ means an occupation carried on by a person
by virtue of his personal and specialised qualifications,
training or skill.
- The word ‘occupation’ has a wide meaning such as any
regular work, profession, job, principal activity,
employment, business or a calling in which an individual is
engaged.
 Art. 19
- ‘Trade’ in its wider sense includes any bargain
or sale, any occupation or business carried on
for subsistence or profit, it is an act of buying
and selling of goods and services
- ‘Business’ includes anything which occupies
the time, attention and labour of man for the
purpose of profit.
 Art. 19
• Nashirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
1975 SC 1368
- The Supreme Court interpreted that there was
no inherent right to carry on trade in liquor
beacause it was clearly against the interest of
general public and also it was properly
abridged with the essence laid down in Part IV
of our constitution, i.e., Article 47 of Directive
Principle of State Policy.
 Art. 19
- The State can exercise any kind of restrictions
as well as prohibition on the trade of liquor,
but this does not mean they have lost their all
fundamental rights. They can approach court
if any restriction imposed on liquor trade is
found to be arbitrary, irrational or
unreasonable.
 Art. 19
• Khoday Distilleries Lt. v. State of Karnataka,
(1995) 1 SCC 574
- The State has power to prohibit the
manufacture, sale, possession, distribution and
consumption of liquor in the light of directives
under Art. 47.
- The restriction can be imposed by way of
legislation, subordinate legislation and
executive order.
 Art. 19
• Dr. Haniraj v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and
Goa, (1996) 3 SCC 342
- The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of a
rule of State Bar Council which restricted entry
of other professionals into legal profession
while they are already carrying any other full
time profession.
 Art. 19
• In cases of betting and gambling, the Supreme Court
has removed them from purview as well as
protection of Article 19(1)(g) on the ground of being
against public policy.
• Also for cases in regards to money-lending, the
Supreme Court discarded this economic activity out
of the purview of Article 19(1)(g)’s protection stating
that this kind of exploitative activity is undoubtedly
against the interest general public and also the said
is anti-social and unscrupulous.
 Art. 19
• M/s B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P., AIR 1999
SC 1867
- The Petitioners challenged the validity of
Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 and the order
passed by the State of UP banning sale of
lottery tickets of other states in the State of
UP.
- Held the ban imposed is constitutional.
 Art. 19
• Om Prakash v. State of UP, AIR 2004 SC 1896
- Prohibition on sale of eggs within municipal
limits of Rishikesh is reasonable restriction.
• State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Qureshi
Kasab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212
- Petitioners challenged the validity of Bombay
Animal Preservation Gujarat Amendment Act,
1994
 Art. 19
- Total ban was imposed by the State of Gujarat
on slaughter of cows and calves and other
milch and drought cattles.
- Held, the prohibition does not amount to total
ban on the activity of butchers.
 Art. 19
• Cooverji v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1954 SC
220
- Held, that the law which created a monopoly
to sell liquor in f/o a few persons was held
valid.
- The sale of intoxicating liquor cannot be
claimed as a right by every citizen.
 Art. 19
• Khatki Ahmad v. Ludi Municipality, AIR 1979 SC
418
- The petitioner was refused a license for opening
meat shop by the municipality under a bye-law.
- Held, no person has a right to choose a particular
spot for opening his shop.
- The local authorities are the best judge to decide
whether a license is to be given or not.
- Held, the bye-law is valid.
 Art. 19
• Prabhani Transport Co-operative Society v. G.V.
Bedekar, AIR 1960 Bom. 278
- Held, that the creation of state monopolies
shall not be considered to deprive a citizen of
the freedom of trade or occupation.
- Thus, the right of the citizen is constitutionally
subjected to the overriding right of the State
to create a monopoly in any trade or business.
THANK YOU