You are on page 1of 21

INTODUCTION

The fundamental Right to freedom is guaranteed under Article 19 to 22 of the constitution. Tease articles deal with the following different aspects of the right to freedom.
1. Six fundamental freedoms (Article 19) 2. Protection in Respect of Conviction for offences (Article 20) 3. Protection of life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) 4. Right to Education (Article 21-A ) 5. Protection Against Arrest and Detention in Certain Cases (Article

22)
1. SIX FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

(Article 19)
Article 19 guarantees to every Citizen of India the following six basic, fundamental freedomsA. Freedom of speech and expression; B. Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms; C. Freedom to form associations or unions; D. Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India; E. Freedom to reside and settle in nay part of the territory of India;

and
F. Freedom to practice any profession,

or to carry on any

occupation, trade or business.

TESTS FOR RESTRICTIONS TO BE IMPOSED ON THE FREEDOMS (ARTICLE 19 (2) TO 19 (6)] The restrictions, which may be imposed on the freedoms guaranteed board tests(1) A restriction can be imposed only by our under the authority of a

under Article 19 (1), must

satisfy te following three

law made by appropriate Legislature. Thus, no restriction can be imposed by executive action alone without the authority of law to back it up.
(2) The restriction

must be imposed in the interests of or for the i.e.,

particular

purpose mentioned in the Clause permitting the the restriction

imposition of the restriction on that particular freedom, there must be a reasonable nexus between imposed and the objects enshrined in the respective Clause. The restriction must be reasonable.
A. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

[Articles 19 (1) (a) & 19 (2)] Article 19 (1) (a) guarantees to all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. Clause (2) of Article 19, at the same time provides: Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any easting 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 incitement to an offence.. IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

or

Freedom of speech and expression has been held to be basic and indivisible for a democratic polity. It is the foundation of a democratic society. It is essential to the rule of law and liberty of citizens In Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras, Patanjali Sastri, C.J. observed: Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of al democratic organizations, for without free political of the process of popular government, is possible. MEANING OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION The freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a), means the right to speak and to expression, opinions by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or in any other manner. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE FREEDOM Freedom of the included Article 19 (1) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. The phrase speech and expression is of very wide connotation Expression naturally presupposes a second party to whom the ideas are expressed or communicated. The freedom of expression, thus, includes the freedom of the propagation of ideas, their publication and circulation. In short, the freedom of speech and expression includes the liberty of the press. discussion no public no public education, so essential for the proper functioning

No Pre-Stoppage of publication in Newspapers of Articles or Matter to Public Importance. In Virendra v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that

banning of publication in the newspaper of its own views or the views or the views of correspondents about the burning topic of the day was a serious encroachment on the valuable and cherished right to freedom of speech and expression. In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of India Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court ruled that prepublication ban, there was a clear and imminent danger to the administration of fair justice and not otherwise. RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION In M. Hassan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that refusal to Journalist andVideographer seeking interview with condemned prisoners amounted to deprivation of citizens fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article, 19 (1) (a). As far the exercise of position of a fundamental rights concerned, the Court said,

condemned prisoner was an part with a free citizen. He had a right the court held, to giver his ideas and was entitled to be interviewed or to televised. The press wile interviewing a person, must first obtain his willingness.

FREEDOM OF CIRCULATION In Ramesh Thaper v. State of Madras, the provincial Government in exercise of its powers under Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras
5

Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, by an Order, imposed a ban upon the entry and circulation of the petitioners weekly journal Cross Roads printed and published in Bombay. The majority of the Supreme court held the Order invalid as volative of the freedom contained in Article 19 (1) (a). The court referred to two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and quoted with approval the following passage there from: Liberty of circulation is as essential to that freedom as the liberty of publication. Indeed, without circulation, the publication would be of title value. There would be violation of the liberty of the press not only when there is a direct ban on the circulation of a publication as was the case in Romesh Thapar, but also when some action on the aprt of the government adversely affects the circulation of the publication. FREEDOM IN THE VOLUME OF NEWS OF VIEWS In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the right to propagate his ideas guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (1) extended not merely to the matter which he was entitled to circulate but also to the volume of circulation. In this case, the Newspapers (Price and Page) Act, 1956 empowered the Central Government to regulate the prices of newspapers in relating to their pages and size and also to regulate the allocation of space for advertising matters. In pursuance of this provision, the Central Government issued the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) order, 1960 which fixed the maximum number of pages that might be published by the newspaper according to the price charged.

The order fixed a minimum price and number of pages which a newspaper was entitled to publish. The petitioners were required to increase the price of their newspaper if they were increasing the pages. Such increase in price would reduce the volume of circulation. On the other hand, if the petitioners were to reduce the price, they were required to decrease the number of pages. That would have the effect of reducing the column, space for news, views or ideas.

The order was challenged as violative of the freedom of the press, sicne its adoption meant either the reduction in the existing number of pages or raising the price. In either case there would be reduction of the volume of circulation of the newspaper and therefore, a direct infringement of the liberty of the press. The order thus, acted as a double edged knife. It cut the circulating by a price rise publication or dissemination of news, ideas pages. Again, in Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, 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. and knowledge or by

restricting column space consequent to decrease in the number of

NO EXCESSIVE TAXES ON PRESS In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. union of India, 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. In this case, the petitioner, who were the editors, printers and publisher of newspapers, periodicals, magazines, etc., challenged the validity of the imposition of import duty on newsprint under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the levy of auxiliary duty under the fianc Act, 1981 on newsprint. NO INDIRECT ATTACK ON PRESS In Bennettt Colemans case, the Supreme Court laid down the test of direct and immediate impact of the impugned action on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a). Appling this test in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the supreme court held that the notice of re-entry upon the forfeiture of lease and of the threatened demolition of the Express therefore, violative of Article, 19 (1) (a) read with Article Constitution. In this case, the petitioner were allotted, under an agreement of lease, plots of land for construction of its pres building. The Lt. Governor of Delhi alleged that the New Express Building was constructed in contravention of Municipal corporation laws and served a notice for re-entry and for its demolition. The material available in this case was sufficient to hold that the impugned notices suffered Buildings, 14 of the intended and meant to silence the voice of the Indian express and

from arbitrariness and non-application of mind. Hence, they were held violative of Articles 19 (1) and 14. FREEDOM IN EMPLOYMENT OF EDITORIAL FORCE BUT NO IMMUNITY FROM GENERAL LAWS. The freedom of the press includes the freedom of employment or non-employment of the necessary means of exercising the right and therefore nay limitation on the choice of employment in the editorial force of a newspaper may undermine the independence of the press. COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENTS-INCLUDED In Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) lal kuan v. Union of India, it was held that commercial advertisements were not covered within the concept of freedom of speech and expression. In the instant case, the Drugs and Magic Remedies (objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 was passed with a view to the prevention of self-medication and self-treatment by prohibiting the publication of advertisements of drugs having magic qualities for curing diseases. The acts was challenged as violative of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1). The supreme Court held the Act valid and ruled that the scope and object of the impugned Act, its true nature and character, was not interference with the right of freedom of speech but it dealt with the trade and business. The provisions of the Act were in the interests of the general public and placed reasonable restrictions on the trade and business of the petitioner and were saved by Article 19 (6). The supreme Court in TATA Press Ltd. v Mahanagar telephone Nigam Ltd., held that commercial speech could not be denied the

protection of Article 19 (1) merely because the same were issued by businessmen. In the instant case, the Tatas were engaged in the publication of the Tata Press Yellow Pages (Tata-Pages) which was a buyers guide comprising of a computation of advertisements given by businessmen, traders and professionals duly business or profession. The Supreme Court held that the Tata press yellow Pages was a buyers Guide comprising of advertisement and the only basis/criterion applied for acceptance or publication of advertisement was that an advertiser should be trader, businessman or professional. Therefore, the Nigam or the Union of India, could not restrain the appellants from publishing the Tata Press Yellow Pages. THE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT FILMS ON DOORDARSHAN In Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lok Vkdayan Sanghatana, the Supreme Court held that the right of citizens of exhibit films on Doordarshan, subject to the terms and conditionjs to be imposed by the Doordarshan, was a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), which could be curtailed only under circumstances set out in Article 19(2). In Bobby Art International v. Om pal Singh Hoon, the Supreme Court upheld the grant of A certificate to the film Bandit Quen and held that the censer fo nudity and rape and the use of expletives exhibited in the film were in aid of the theme and were not intended to arouse prurient or lascivious thought but intended to arouse revulsions against the perpetrators and pity for the victim. classed according to their trade,

10

RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS/VOTERS TO KNOW THE ANTECEDENTS OF THE CANDIDATES AT ELECTION Article 19(1)(a) guaratees the right to speak and express conself. It has been held that the freedom of speech and expression includes the votes speeches or expression in case of elections in a democracy. It has been said that voter speaks out or expresses by casting vote. Explaining that democracy government is a continual participate operation, and that a successful democracy posists an aware citizenry. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Assocaition for democratic reforms, rule that voters, right to know antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting election for M.P. or M.L.A. was fundamental and basic for survival democracy. Holding that democracy cannto survive without free and fair elections, without free and farily informed voters, the Court said that the voter had the right to get material information with respect to a candidate contesting election for a post, which was of utmost importance in the democracy, was implied in the freedom of speech guaranteed by article 19(1)(a). To maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring transparency in the process of election, the Apex Court directed the Election Commission of India, to call for, on affidavit, by issuing necessary order, in exercise of its power under Article 324, from each candidate seeking election to parliament or a State Legislature, as a necessary part of his nomination paper, information regarding his assets, educational qualifications and criminal past, as present criminal record. Holding that the Court could not pass any order, directing the legislature to amend the law, the Delhi high Court in Association for
11

democratic Commission

reforms

v.

Union

of

India

directed

in

Election

to secure to voters, information pertaining to assets, candidates

education qualifications and antecedents of life of the contesting election.

ARTICLE 19(1) FORBIDS STATE MONOPOLY EITHER IN PRINT OR ELECTRONIC MEDIA The Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry Information and broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, made an important innovation and held that the Government had no monopoly on electronic media and that citizen had under Article 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 any body else, was inconsistent with free speech right. No monopoly of this media could be conceived for the simple reason that Article 19(2) did not permit State monopoly unlike Clause (6) of Article 19 vis--vis the right guaranteed by article 19(1)(g). the Court directed the Central Government to take immediate steps for setting up fo an autonomous public authority to control use of airwaves, which would free the Doordarshan and Akashvani from the control fo the Government and ensure conditions in which the freedom of speech and expression could be meaningfully and effectively enjoyed by the citizens. PRE-CENSORSHIP OF FILMS In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, the constitutionality of films as a media of expression and its pre-censorship came up before the Supreme Court. Under the clinematograph Act, 1952, films are categorized as U films and A films. While U films are meant for
12

unrestricted exhibition. A films can be shown to adults only. The petitioner, unable to get U certificate for his film Tale of Four cities, questioned the validity of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 along with the rules made hereunder. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the impugned Act and said that pre-censorship of films was justified under Article 19(2) as imposing a reasonable restriction. It was observed that films had to be treated separately from other forms of art and expression, because, a motion picture was able to stip up emotions more deeply than any other product of art. Classification of Films into two categories i.e., U films and A films, was therefore held to be valid. DEMONSTRATIONS, PICKETING, STRIKES It has been held that demonstrations for picketing are visible manifestation of ones ideas and in effect a form of speech and expression. However, in order to be protected under Article 19(1)(a), the demonstrations or picketing must not be violent and disorderly. Picketing, which does not go beyond 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). The right to go on strike has not been held to be include within the scope and ambit of the freedom of speech and expression. In T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court ruled: Apart from the statutory right, the Government employees cannot claim that they can hold society to ransom by going on strike.

13

As regards the lawyers a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Harish Uppal v. Union of India, categories pronounced that the lawyers had not right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even a token strike. The Supreme Court in Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar, reiterated with approval the decision of the Kerala High Court in Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala, band laid down that there was no right to call or enforce bandh which interfered with the exercise of fundamental freedoms 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. FREEDOM OF SILENCE-RIGHT NOT TO SPEAK In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala the Supreme Court held that no person could be compelled to sign National Anthem if he has genuine conscientious objections based on his religious belief. In this case three children belonging to Jehovahs witnesses, were expelled from the school for refusing to sing the national Anthem was being sung, but did not join in singing it. The Kerala High Court upheld their expulsion from the school on the ground that it was their fundamental duty to sing the National Anthem and they committed an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honous Act, 1971. The Supreme court, however, reversed the decision of the High Court and observed that they did not commit any ofence. It was held that the expulsion of the children from that school was a violation of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) which also induced freedom of silence.

14

RIGHT OF THE CONVICT TO EXPRESS In M. Hasan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the A.P. High Court held that refusal to journalist and videographers seeking interview with condemned prisoners amonted to dprivation of citizens fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). As far the exercise of fundamental rights concerned, the Court said, position of a condemned prisoner was on part with a free citizen. He had a right, the Court ruled to give his ideas and was entitled to be interviewed or to be televised. ARTICLE 19(1)(A) RECOGNIZES NO GEOGRAPHICAL BARRIERS In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court laid down that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) had no geographical limitations. The freedom carried with it, the right to gather information as also to speak and express oneself, at home and abroad and to exchange thoughts and ideas with others, not only in India but also outside. RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON TRADE OR BUSINESS [ARTICLE 19(6)] The Right to practice any profession or to carry on any business or trade guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) may be restricted in two ways. Firstly, by reasonable restrictions which might be imposed by State by law in the interests of general public. Secondly, the state may itself or through a corporation owned or controlled by it, carry or any trade or business and thus excluding citizens, completely or partly, from carrying on such trade or business. REASONABLE RESTRICTION IN PUBLIC INTEREST

15

The restrictions which may be imposed under article 19(6) must satisfy the following two conditions(1)

The restrictions must be imposed in the interests of general public, and

(2)

The restriction must be reasonable.

The expression in the interests of general public in Article 19(6) has been held to be of wide import comprehending public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the constitution. In Muncipal Corporation Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammad, the Court upheld two standing Orders made by the Munciipal Commissioner of the City of Ahmedabad, under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, directing the closure of Municipal slaughter houses on certain days. The orders were challenged as volatile of right of the petitioner respondent, a beef dealer, under Article 19(1)(g). The Order were issued to ensure proper holidays for the municipal staff working in the Municipal slaughter houses. In Manohar Lal v. State of Punjab the Punjab Trade

Employees, At 1949, which provided that shops and establishments would remain closed for a days in a week, was upheld as imposing reasonable restriction in the interest of and efficiency of the workers who formed an essential part of the community and in whose welfare the community was vitally interested. The restriction under the Act was held applicable to the shops entirely conducted by the owner and his family.

16

In Khatki Ahmed v. Ludi Municipality, the petitioner was refused a licence for opening meat shop by the Municipality under a bye-law which empowered the Municipality to grant or refuse licence. The licnece was refused on the ground that there were already three licensed meat shops including one of the father of the petitioner. The bye- law was held valid. In Lord Krishna Sugar Mills v. Union of India, The Movement acting under the Sugar Export promotion Act, imposed an obligation on sugar mills to hand over a certain percentage of their production to government agency for export at low price. It was done with a view to earn foreign exchange. To counter the loss, the Government fixed a higher price, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, for the sale of sugar by the mills in the home market. Since, both the legislations formed part of the same scheme, the Supreme reasonable restriction. RESTRICTION MUST NOT BE UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE In Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., with a view to providing the supply of adequate labour for agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing of bidis, during agricultural seasons. The Act was held invalid as it imposed unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on the bidi manufacturing business in that area as it was much in excess of the purpose of the Act. The Supreme Court held: It goes much in excess of that object. The Statute as it stands, not only compels those who can be engaged in agriculture work from not taking other avocatiosn, but it also prohibits persons who have no connection or relation to agriculture operations from engaging in the business of bidi making and thus earning their livelihood.

17

RESTRICTION MAY AMOUNT TO TOTAL PROHIBITION The word restriction in Clause (6) of Article 19 may include total prohibition under certain circumstances. In Sushila Saw Mill v. State of Orissa, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Orissa Saw mills and Saw Pit (Control) Act, 1991 under which a total was imposed on the right to carry on trade or business in saw milling operation sawing operation within the prohibited area. The preservation of forest being a grow matter of public interest was one of the rare cases that demanded total ban. The question as to whether reasonable restriction could include prohibition depends on the nature of the mischief which the Legislature seeks remedy. For instance, where a business or trade is inherently dangerous, such making or selling of intoxicant liquors, trading in explosives, trafficking in was tourism, total prohibition thereof would be reasonable.

18

PROJECT REPORT ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW


TOPIC:

ARTICLE 19
-4TH

19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project is my assignment as a student of law in one of the best department for the study of law. I am grateful to my family and friends for encouraging me to join law which was otherwise a long cherished desire residing some where in my mind. I express my deep gratitude towards our respected teacher Prof. Shruti Bedi, whose lectures and method of teaching makes the subject of Constitutional Law understandable and interesting. My sincere thanks are due to the staff of the library valuable support. for their

20

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Indian Constitutional Law by V.N.Shukla Constitution of India by P.M.Bakshi. Constitutional Law of India by Prof. Narender Kumar.

21

You might also like