1
University Institute Of Legal
Studies
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-II
ARTICLE 19(1)(a) & 19(2)
Submitted To : Dr. Shruti Bedi
Submitted By : Sangam Garg
Class : B.ComLL.B.(Hons.)
Semester : 4th
Roll No : 201/16
Session : 2018-2019
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I HAVE WRITTEN THIS PROJECT TITLED “ Article 19(1)(a) & 19(2) ”
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF “ Dr. Shruit Bedi ” SENIOR ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR OF UILS, PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH.
THE VALUABLE SUGGESTIONS OF MY SUPERVISOR NOT ONLY
HELPED ME IMMENSELY IN MAKING THIS WORK, BUT ALSO IN
DEVELOPING AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH IN WORK.
I FOUND NO WORDS TO EXPRESS MY SENSE OF GRATITUDE FOR
DIRECTOR OF OUR INSTITUTE FOR ENCOURAGEMENT AT EVERY
STEP.
I AM EXTREMELY GRATEFUL TO LIBRARIAN AND LIBRARY STAFF
OF THE INSTITUTE FOR THE SUPPORT AND COOPERATION
EXTENDED BY THEM TIME TO TIME.
ALSO, MY FATHER AND MOTHER CONTRIBUTION, SUPPORT AND
COOPERATION IN THIS WORK IS BEYOND WORDS.
-Sangam Garg
3
Table of contents
1) Acknowledgement............................................................ 2
2) Table of cases.................................................................. 4
3) Abstract............................................................................ 5
4) Reasonable restrictions..................................................... . 6-7
5) Freedom of speech and expression.................................. 7-15
Right to Information- 8-9
Freedom of Press- 11-12
6) Grounds of restrictions...................................................... 16-18
7) Bibliography .................................................................... 19.
4
TABLE OF CASES
Brij Bhusan Vs State of Delhi (1950)
Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar
Chambara Soy v. State of Orissa
C.P.I v. Bharat Kumar
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India
Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India
Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn. Vs R.K. Jain
Indian Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
K.A. Abbas Vs Union of India
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah
Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkatu v. State of West Bengal
Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras
Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Secretary West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das
Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal
State of U.P v. Raj Narain
Sushil Choudhury v. State of Tripura
TATA Press ltd v. MTNL
T.K Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms Case
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal
5
ABSTRACT
Protection of certain rights regarding Freedom of Speech (ARTICLE19)
19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(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
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
(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
(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
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) 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 or morality, reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) 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,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses
either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any
Scheduled Tribe
(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
6
sub clause, and, in particular, 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 .
FREEDOMS NOT ABSOLUTE – SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS
Reasonable restriction means intelligent care and discussion that the restriction is not beyond
what is required for public interest. It should not be arbitrary and excessive. Further, the
restriction can only be imposed by law and not by executive or departmental decision.
The Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines :
1. It is the courts and not the legislature that will decide whether a law is reasonable or
not.
2. Reasonable means that the law is not arbitrary and the restriction is not beyond what
is required in public interest. The time and duration of the restriction cannot be
unlimited.
3. There is no fixed standard for reasonableness. Each case must be decided on its own
merits.
4. The restriction must be reasonable from substantiative as well as procedural stand
point.
5. Restrictions imposed due to implementation of Directive Principles may deemed to be
reasonable.
6. The test of reasonability must be objective in the sense that it does not matter what a
Judge or Court thinks what is reasonable but what a normal reasonable person would
think.
7. The restriction must have a relation to the object that is sought through the law and
must not be excessive.
7
8. It is the reasonableness of the restriction that a count has to determine and not the
reasonableness of the law itself.
9. Restriction may amount to prohibition.
10.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
ARTICLES 19(1) (A) & 19(2)
Meaning and scope
Article 19(1) (a) of Indian Constitution says that all citizens have the right to freedom of
speech and expression.Freedom of speech and expression is the most basic of all freedoms
granted to the citizens of India.C.J.Patanjali Shastri has said in the case of Romesh Thaper
v. State of Madras1 that freedom of speech and that of the press lay at the foundation of a
democratic society, for without free political discussions, no public education is possible,
which is so important for the proper functioning of the govt. Freedom of Speech and
expression means the right to express one's own convictions and opinions freely by words of
mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. It thus includes the expression of one's
idea through any communicable medium or visible representation, such as gesture, signs, and
the like. Freedom of speech would amount to nothing if it were not possible to propagate the
ideas. Thus, the freedom of publication and press is also covered under freedom of speech.
Free propagation of ideas is the necessary objective and this may be done on the platform or
through the press. This propagation of ideas is secured by freedom of circulation. Liberty of
circulation is essential to that freedom as the liberty of publication. Indeed, without
circulation the publication would be of little value. The freedom of speech and expression
includes liberty to propagate not one's views only. It also includes the right to propagate or
publish the views of other people; otherwise this freedom would not include the freedom of
press.
Freedom of expression has four broad special purposes to serve:
1) It helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment.
2) It assists in the discovery of truth.
1
AIR 1950 SC 124
8
3) It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making.
4) It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable
balance between stability and social change.
5) All members of society would be able to form their own beliefs and communicate
them freely to others.
In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people's right to know. Freedom of
speech and expression should, therefore, receive generous support from all those who believe
in the participation of people in the administration. It is on account of this special interest
which society has in the freedom of speech and expression that the approach of the
Government should be more cautious while levying taxes on matters of concerning
newspaper industry than while levying taxes on other matters. Explaining the scope of
freedom of speech and expression Supreme Court has said that the words "freedom of speech
and expression" must be broadly constructed to include the freedom to circulate one's views
by words of mouth or in writing or through audiovisual instrumentalities. It therefore includes
the right to propagate one's views through the print media or through any other
communication channel e.g. the radio and the television. Every citizen of this country
therefore has the right to air his or their views through the printing and or the electronic
media subject of course to permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2)of the
Constitution.
CONTENTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
Right to Know and to Obtain Information:
The right of Information is indisputably a fundamental right, a facet of “speech and
expression” as contained in Article 19(1)(a).
In State of U.P v. Raj Narain2, It has been said that in a Government of responsibility like
ours,it is elementary that citizens ought to know what their government is doing.They have
the right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public
functionaries.No democratic government can survive without accountability and basic
2
AIR 1975 SC 865
9
Postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the functioning
of the Government.It has been said that exposure to a Public gaze and scrutiny is one of the
surest means of achieving a clean and Healthy administration.
The Freedom of Speech and Expression includes the right to educate,to inform and to
entertain and also the right to be educated, informed and entertained.But,such
information can be given to extent it is available and possible, without affecting the
fundamental right of others
The Right to Information, like other rights is subjected to exempting areas like
national security,military deployment.international relations.
The Judiciary had no valid reason to claim such immunity from public gaze.
If the Judges supports the RTI, like voluntary disclosures , it would go a long way in
enhancing their moral stature, empower the people and give a fillip to the movement
of the right to know within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a).
Right of Voters to Know the antecedents of candidates at Election:
The foundation of a healthy democracy is to have well-informed citizens-voters. The reason
to have right of information with regard to the antecedents of the candidate is that voter can
judge and decide in whose favour he should cast his vote. It is voter’s discretion whether to
vote in favour of an illiterate or literate candidate. It is his choice whether to elect a candidate
against whom criminal cases, for serious or non-serious charges were filed but is acquitted or
discharged. For the first time the right to know about the candidate standing for election has
been brought within the sweep of article 19(1) (a). There is no doubt that by doing so a new a
new dimension has been given dictated by the need to improve and refine the political
process of election.
In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms Case3, the Apex court ruled that
article 19(1) (a) which provides for freedom of speech and expression would cover in its fold
right of the voter to know specified antecedents of a candidate ,who is contesting
elections.The Amendment Act 2002,required the disclosure of information in respect of
pending criminal proceedings as well as past Conviction.
3
AIR 2002 SC 2112
10
Right of the Examinee to have Access to Evaluated Scripts:
In Secretary West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das 4, the
Apex Court ruled that the Courts should not normally direct the production of answer scripts,
to be inspected by the examinees, unless a case was made out to show that either some
questions had not been evaluated or that the evaluation had been done contrary to the norms
fixed by the examining body.
Right to Fly the National Flag:
In Naveen Jindal’s Case5, It has been held in this case that right to fly the National flag with
respect and dignity to be a Fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a), but so
long as the Expression is confined to nationalism , patriotism and love for motherland.It
cannot be used for commercial purpose or otherwise.
Freedom of Silence-Right to Remain Silent :
In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala6, the Supreme Court held that no person could be
compelled to sing the National Anthem “If he has genuine conscientious objections based on
his religious belief”.In this case, three children expelled from the school for refusing to sing
the National anthem during school prayers.The Kerala High Court upheld their explusion
from the school on ground that it was their Fundamental duty to sing the National Anthem
and they committed an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act,
1971.The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and observed that they did
not commit any offence. It was held that the explusion of the children from that school was a
violation of their Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) which also included freedom of
silence.
Right Against Sound Pollution:
In Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkatu v. State of West Bengal.7 the High
court held that Article 19(1)(a) protected the citizens against excessive sound. Upholding the
restrictions on the use of microphone and loud speakers at the time of giving Azan, the Court
4
AIR 2007 SC 3098
5
AIR 2004 SC 1559
6
AIR 1987 SC 748
7
AIR 1999 Cal 15.
11
said that no one could under Article 19(1)(a), claim an absolute right to suspend other rights
or it could disturb other basic human rights and fundamental Rights to sleep and leisure.
COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT:
In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India8, The Supreme Court held that ‘Commercial
Advertisements’ were not included within the concept of freedom of speech and expression.
In Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 9 the Supreme Court held that all
commercial advertisements could not denied the protection of art 19(1)(a), merely because
they were issued by a businessmen and are part of freedom of speech and expression.
In TATA Press ltd v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.10 It was held that Commercial
Speech could not be denied the protection of art 19(1)(a), merely because they were issued by
businessmen. In a democratic society it was observed that free flow of commercial
information was indispensible.The Supreme Court held that Commercial Advertisement was
a part of the freedom of speech and expression.
FREEDOM OF PRESS IN DEMOCRACY –“ It is the primary duty of all the national
courts to uphold the freedom of the press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions
which interfere with such freedoms against constitutional mandate”, observed the Supreme
Court in Indian express newspaper Vs Union of India11, While highlighting the importance
of the freedom of the press in a democracy. To arrest the malpractices of interfering with the
free flow of information, the democratic constitution all over the world provided guarantee of
freedom of speech and expression underlying the circumstances under which restrictions are
imposed.
8
1960
9
AIR 1986 SC 515
10
AIR 1995 SC 2438
11
AIR 1962 SC 305
12
No pre-Censorship on Press: The Freedom of the Press, means the right to print and publish
what one pleases, without any previous permission. Imposition of pre-censorship on
publication is, therefore, violative of the Freedom of the press, unless justified under clause
(2) of Article 19.
In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi12, The Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued an order
against the petitioner,the printer, publisher and editor of an English weekly “the Organiser”
published from Delhi, directing them to submit, for scrutiny in duplicate, before publication
till futher orders, all communal matters and news and views about Pakistan including
photographs and cartoons other than those derived from official sources or supplied by the
news agencies.The majority of the Supreme Court struck down the order as violative of
Article 19(1)(a).
Freedom of Circulation: Liberty of circulation is as essential to that freedom as the liberty of
publication.Indeed,without circulation,the publication would be of little value.
In Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras13, Where the government tried to put a ban on the
circulation of newspaper,The court while interpreting the scope of art 19(1)(a) of the
constitution held that “the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation
of ideas which freedom was ensured by the freedom of circulation and that the liberty of
press consisted in allowing to previous restraint upon the publication. It was further observed
that the fundamental freedom of speech and expression enshrined in our constitution was
based on the provision to the First Amendment of the constitution of USA. Also there would
be violation of the liberty of press not only when there is a direct ban on the circulation of a
publication, but also when some action on the part of the government adversely affects the
publication”.
Freedom in the Volume of News or Views:
In Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India14, The Supreme Court laid down that
Freedom of Speech and Expression was not only in the volume of circulation but also in the
volume of news and views.The Newsprint Policy provided bar on starting newspapers or
editions by common ownership unit, as also an interchangeability within common ownership
unit. It also fixed the maximum number of pages, i.e. 10 pages, which a newspaper could
12
AIR1950 SC129
13
AIR 1950 SC594
14
AIR 1973 SC 106.
13
publish with an allowance of 20 per cent page increase only to newspapers below ten
pages.The Supreme Court struck down the Newsprint Policy as being violative of Article
19(1)(a). The Court held that the newspapers should be left free determine their pages, their
circulation and their new edition within their quota of newsprint which had been fairly fixed.
No Excessive Taxes on Press:
In Indian Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India15, The Supreme Court
emphasized that the Government should be more cautious while levying taxes on matters
concerning newspaper industry than while levying taxes on other matters. The Supreme
Court held that the newspaper industry had not been granted exemption from taxation.
However, the exercise of power to tax should be subject to scrutiny by the Courts. The
imposition of a tax like the customs duty on newsprint, the court said, was an imposition of
tax on knowledge and would virtually amount to burden imposed on a man for being literate
and for being a conscious of his duty as a citizen inform himself of the world around him.
No Indirect Attack on Press:
In Sushil Choudhury v. State of Tripura16, It was held that the policy of Government of
allotting the advertisements , discriminating against certain newspapers, violated not only the
freedom of press but also the equality clause contained in Article 14. Such policy affect
formations of healthy public opinion, necessary for good democracy.
Should the journalist reveal its source :The Press Council Act,1978 provides that it should
not force a journalist to reveal its source. If the court considered necessary in the interest of
justice, the court could direct the journalist to disclose its source of information.There is no
law that permits a newspaper or a journalist to withhold relevant information from the
Courts.17
Right to Exhibit Flms :In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Manubhai D. Shah,18the
Supreme Court held that a Film- maker had a Fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to
exhibit films on doordarshan.
15
AIR 1986 SC 515
16
AIR 1998 Gau 28.
17
P.U.C.L v. Union of India , AIR 2004 Sc 456.
18
AIR 1988 SC 171
14
Government has no monopoly on electronic media:
In Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of
Bengal,19 The Supreme Court widened the scope and extent of the right to freedom of speech
and expression and held that the government has no monopoly on electronic media and a
citizen has under Art. 19(1)(a) a right to telecast and broadcast to the viewers/listeners
through electronic media television and radio any important event. It has been held that a
monopoly over broadcasting whether by Government or anybody else, was inconsistent with
free speech right. A citizen has fundamental right to use the best means of imparting and
receiving communication and as such have an access to telecasting for the purpose.
Pre- censorship of films :
In K.A. Abbas Vs Union of India,20 the Supreme Court held that it has been almost
universally recognised that the treatment of motion ,pictures must be different from that of
other forms of art and expression. The motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply
than any other product of art. Its effect particularly on children and adolescents is very great
since their immaturity makes them more willingly suspend their disbelief than mature men
and women. Therefore, classification of films into two categories of 'U' films and 'A' films is
a reasonable classification. It is also for this reason that motion picture must be regarded
differently from other forms of speech and expression.
Right to Strike,Demonstrations,Picketing:
In C.P.I v. Bharat Kumar21, It has been held that “right to go on strike” has not been held to
be included within the scope and ambit of the “Freedom of speech and expression’
In T.K Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu22, The Apex Court said that strike as a
weapon had been mostly misused, resulting in chaos and total maladministration. Such an
action by the government employees,the court said,affected society as a whole and brought
the administration to a grinding halt.If they presumed that injustice had been done to them,
there was a machinery provided in a Welfare State for the redressal of their grievances.
19
AIR 1995 SC 1236
20
AIR 1971
21
AIR 1998 SC 184
22
AIR 2003 SC 2032
15
Picketing: which does not go beyong the limits of persuasion or inducement and which does
not restrain others from doing what they please would be saved under Article 19(1)(a)
Demonstrations: Demonstrations must not be violent and disorderly to be protected under
Article 19(1)(a).
No Right to Call Bandh or Hartals:
In Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar23, The Supreme Court laid down that there
was no right to call or enforce ‘bandh’ which interfered with the exercise of fundamental
freedom of other citizens, in addition, to causing national loss in many ways. A bandh , the
court said ,was,in fact, a curfew declared against the State.
In Chambara Soy v. State of Orissa24, It was held that no one has the right to call for
‘blockade’(Chakkajam) of the office of the local authority so as to prevent people from
approaching the authority in exercise of their right of free movement.
Trial by Media
A Journalist has the right, under Article 19(1)(a) to publish, as journalist, a faithful report of
the proceedings witnessed and heard in Court.However, in certain matters, such as, the
commission of the offenceof rape, unnecessary publicity may lead to miscarriage of justice.
In Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi)25, It was held that Article 19(1)(a) did not
permit the media interfering in the administration of justice in matters sub judice. Their
lordships,recognising the significance of the print and electronic media in the present
day,pointed to the dangers of serious risk of prejudice of the media unexercised unrestricted
freedom in holding the suspect or the accused guilty even before such an order passed by th
Court.Trial by media not only hampered fair investigation but also amounted to travesty of
Justice.
23
AIR 1998 SC 184
24
AIR 2008 Ori.149.
25
AIR 2010 SC 2352
16
GROUNDS OF RESTRICTIONS:ARTICLE 19(2)
It is necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, so
also it is necessary to place some restrictions on this freedom for the maintenance of social
order, because no freedom can be absolute or completely unrestricted. Accordingly, under
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the State may make a law imposing “reasonable
restrictions” on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression “in the interest
of the public on the following grounds: Clause (2) of Article 19 of Indian constitution
contains the grounds on which restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression can be
imposed.
1) Security of State: Under Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on fredom
of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. The term "security of state" refers
only to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g. rebellion, waging war against the
State, insurrection and not ordinary breaches of public order and public safety, e.g. unlawful
assembly, riot, affray. Thus speeches or expression on the part of an individual, which incite
to or encourage the commission of violent crimes, such as, murder are matters, which would
undermine the security of State.
2) Friendly relations with foreign states: This ground was added by the constitution (First
Amendment) Act, 1951. The object behind the provision is to prohibit unrestrained malicious
propaganda against a foreign friendly state, which may jeopardise the maintenance of good
relations between India, and that state. No similar provision is present in any other
Constitution of the world. In India, the Foreign Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides
punishment for libel by Indian citizens against foreign dignitaries. Interest of friendly
relations with foreign States, would not justify the suppression of fair criticism of foreign
policy of the Government. It is to be noted that member of the commonwealth including
Pakistan is not a "foreign state" for the purposes of this Constitution. The result is that
freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted on the ground that the matter is
adverse to Pakistan.
3) Public Order: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. 'Public
order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which
prevails among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by
the Government which they have established." Public order is something more than ordinary
17
maintenance of law and order. 'Public order' is synonymous with public peace, safety and
tranquility. 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 of 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. Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public
peace disturbs public order. Thus communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole
object of causing unrest among workmen are offences against public order. Public order thus
implies absence of violence and an orderly state of affairs in which citizens can peacefully
pursue their normal avocation of life. Public order also includes public safety. Thus creating
internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and public safety. But mere criticism
of government does not necessarily disturb public order. In its external aspect 'public safety'
means protection of the country from foreign aggression. Under public order the State would
been titled to prevent propaganda for a state of war with India. The words 'in the interest of
public order' includes not only such utterances as are directly intended to lead to disorder but
also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder. Thus a law punishing utterances made
with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of persons is valid
because it imposes a restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of public order since
such speech or writing has the tendency to create public disorder even if in some case those
activities may not actually lead to a breach of peace. But there must be reasonable and proper
nexus or relationship between the restrictions and the achievements of public order.
4) Decency or morality: The words 'morality or decency' are words of wide meaning.
Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the freedom
of speech and expression in the interest of decency or morality. These sections prohibit the
sale or distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is
laid down till now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from
time to time and from place to place.
5) Contempt of Court: Restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed
if it exceeds the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court. According to the
Section 2 'Contempt of court' may be either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt.' In a
democratic country Judiciary plays very important role. In such situation it becomes essential
to respect such institution and its order. Thus, restriction on the freedom of speech and
expression can be imposed if it exceeds the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to
18
contempt of court. According to the Section 2 'Contempt of court' may be either 'civil
contempt' or 'criminal contempt.' But now, Indian contempt law was amended in 2006 to
make “truth” a defence. However, even after such amendment a person can be punished for
the statement unless they were made in public interest. Again in Indirect Tax Practitioners
Assn. Vs R.K. Jain26, it was held by court that, “Truth based on the facts should be allowed
as a valid defence if courts are asked to decide contempt proceedings relating to contempt
proceeding relating to a speech or an editorial or article”. The qualification is that such
defence should not cover-up to escape from the consequences of a deliberate effort to
scandalize the court.
6) Defamation: Defamation: Ones’ freedom, be it of any type, must not affect the reputation
or status another person. A person is known by his reputation more than his wealth or any
thing else. Constitution considers it as ground to put restriction on freedom of speech.
Basically, a statement, which injures a man's reputation, amounts to defamation. Defamation
consists in exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law in relating to
defamation is still uncodified in India and subject to certain exceptions.
7) Incitement to an offence: This ground was also added by the constitution (First
Amendment) Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right
to incite people to commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or omission made
punishable by law for the time being in force.
8) Sovereignty and integrity of India- To maintain sovereignty and integrity of a state is
prime duty of government. Taking into it into account, freedom of speech and expression can
be restricted so as not to permit any one to challenge sovereignty or to permit any one to
preach something which will result in threat to integrity of the country.
9) Sedition: As understood by English law, sedition embraces all those practices whether by
words, or writing which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the State and lead ignorant
person to subvert the government. It should be noted that the sedition is not mentioned in
clause (2) of Art. 19 as one of the grounds on which restrictions on freedom of speech and
expression may be imposed.
26
2010 VOL 8 SCC 281
19
Bibliography
Kumar, Narendra “Constitutional Law of India”, edition 2016,
Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, Haryana.
Choudhary, Sudhir “Oxford Handbook of Indian Constitution”,
edition 2016, Oxford University Press.
Bakshi, P.M., “The Constitution of India”, 12th edition 2015,
Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi.
“The Constitution of India, Bare Act with short notes”, edition
2017, Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi.
