Constitutional Law I

DR. RAM MAHOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I
PROJECT ON:
(FINAL DRAFT)

FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION AND ITS RESTRICTIONS

SUBMITTED BY: UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

DEVANSH RATHI DR. ATUL KUMAR TIWARI
EN-ROLL NO: 053 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (LAW)
SECTION ‘A’ DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA
B.A. LLB (Hons.), SEMESTER III NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SIGNATURE OF STUDENT: SIGNATURE OF PROFESSOR:

1|Page
 Constitutional Law I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher Dr. A.K. Tiwari for giving me such a
challenging topic and also for her exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant
encouragement throughout the course of this thesis.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my seniors in the college
for their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in completing
this task through various stages.

I am obliged to the staff members of the Madhu Limaye Library, for the timely and valuable
information provided by them in their respective fields. I am grateful for their cooperation
during the period of my assignment.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement without
which this assignment would not have been possible.

DEVANSH

2|Page
 Constitutional Law I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
I. Introduction………………………………………………………... 4
II. Meaning And Scope…………….………………………..……...… 5
III. Landmark Cases…………………………………………………….7
IV. New Dimensions Of Freedom Of Speech And Expression………....9
V. Reasonable Restrictions…………………………………………….10
— Security Of State……………………...……………………..10
— Friendly Relations With Foreign Nationals……………….…11
— Public Order………………………………………………….11
— Decency And Morality………………………………………12
— Contempt Of Court………………………………………..…13
— Defamation…………………………………………………..14
— Incitement To An Offence……..…………………………….15
— Sedition……………………………………………………....15
VI. Conclusion………………………………………………………….16
VII. Reference………………….………………………………………..17

3|Page
 Constitutional Law I

Introduction
Speech is God's gift to mankind. Through speech a human being conveys his thoughts,
sentiments and feeling to others. Freedom of speech and expression is thus a natural right,
which a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a basic right. "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).1
Freedom of speech is granted unambiguous protection in international law by
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which is binding on around 150
nations.

The people of India declared in the Preamble of the Constitution, which they gave unto
themselves their resolve to secure to all the citizens liberty of thought and expression. This
resolve is reflected in Article 19(1) (a) which is one of the Articles found in Part III of the
Constitution, which enumerates the Fundamental Rights.2

Man as rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be
controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals.
The guarantee of each of the above right is, therefore, restricted by the Constitution in the
larger interest of the community. The right to freedom of speech and expression is subject to
limitations imposed under Article 19(2).

Public order as a ground of imposing restrictions was added by the Constitution (First
Amendment) Act, 1951. Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law
and order. Public order in the present context is synonymous with public peace, safety and
tranquility.

In many nations apart from India, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government,
overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other
forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity,
and defamation laws.

1
Article 19, UDHR.
2
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/freedom-of-speech-and-expression-
constitutional-law-essay.php

4|Page
 Constitutional Law I

Meaning & Scope

Freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one’s own convictions and
opinions freely by means of mouth, writing, printing pictures or any other mode. It thus
includes the expression of one’s ideas through any communicable medium or visible
representation, such as gesture, signs and the like.3 The expression connotes also publications
and thus the freedom of press is included in this category.

Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens the right to freedom
of speech and expression. The law states that, “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of
speech and expression”. Under Article 19(2) “reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
exercise of this right for certain purposes. Any limitation on the exercise of the right under
Article 19(1) (a) not falling within the four corners of Article 19(2) cannot be valid.

The freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) includes the right to express one’s views and
opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing,
picture, film, movie etc. It thus includes the freedom of communication and the right to
propagate or publish opinion. But this right is subject to reasonable restrictions being
imposed under Article 19(2). Free expression cannot be equated or confused with a license to
make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary.

It is important to note that a restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be placed
as much by an action of the State as by its inaction. Thus, failure on the part of the State to
guarantee to all its citizens irrespective of their circumstances and the class to which they
belong, the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression would constitute a
violation of Article 19(1)(a).

The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is regarded as one of the most
basic elements of a healthy democracy for it allows its citizens to participate fully and
effectively in the social and political process of the country. In fact, the freedom of speech
and expression gives greater scope and meaning to the citizenship of a person extending the
concept from the level of basic existence to giving the person a political and social life.

This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals.4 This right is,
however, not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose reasonable

3
Lowell v Griffin, (1939) 303 US 444
4
Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Supdt., Presidency Jail, Calcutta, AIR 1955 SC 367

5|Page
 Constitutional Law I

restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly
relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality and contempt of court,
defamation and incitement to an offence.

The freedom of speech and expression has been held to be basic and indivisible for a
democratic polity. The freedom of speech and expression means the right to express one’s
conviction and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures, photographs,
cartoons or any other mode. It means freedom of speech and expression is to express one’s
convictions and opinions or ideas freely, through any communicable medium or visible
representation, such as gesture, signs and the like.5 It means to freely propogate,
communicate or circulate one’s opinion or views. In other words, freedom of speech and
expression to lay what sentiments, a free citizen pleases, before the public. 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. Freedom of speech opens up channels of free discussions of
issues and play a crucial role in public opinion on social, political and economic matters.6

Freedom of speech and expression should, therefore, receive generous support from all those
who believe in the participation of people in the administration. The freedom of speech and
expression includes freedom of circulation and propagation of ideas and, therefore, the right
extends to the citizen to use the media to answer the criticism leveled against the views
propagated by him. Every citizen has undoubted right to express what sentiments he pleases.
This freedom must, however, be exercised with circumspection and care must be taken not to
trench on the rights of other citizens or to jeopardise public interest.

5
Lovell v. City of Griffin, (1937) 303 US 444
6
Jelis Subhan, “Emerging Rights Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India” Retrieved from
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2145117>

6|Page
 Constitutional Law I

Landmark Cases
— Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala7
Freedom of speech also includes the right to silence. In the case, three children belonging to
Jehovah’s witnesses were expelled from the school for refusing to sing the national anthem,
although they stood respectfully when the same was being sung. They challenged the validity
of their expulsion before the Kerala High Court which upheld the expulsion as valid and on
the ground that it was their fundamental duty to sing the national anthem. On appeal, the
Supreme Court held that the students did not commit any offence under the Prevention of
Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Also, there was no law under which their fundamental
right under Article 19(1) (a) could be curtailed.

Accordingly, it was held that the children’s expulsion from the school was a violation of their
fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a), which also includes the freedom of silence.

— Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India8

In this case, the validity of the Newsprint Control Order was challenged. The Order fixed the
maximum number of pages which a newspaper could publish, and this was said to be
violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. The government raised the contention
that fixing the newsprint would help in the growth of small newspapers as well as prevent
monopoly in the trade. It also justified its order of reduction of page level on the ground that
big dailies devote a very high percentage of space to advertisements, and therefore, the cut in
pages will not affect them. The Court held the newsprint policy to be an unreasonable
restriction, and observed that the policy abridged the petitioner’s right of freedom of speech
and expression. The Court also held that the fixation of page limit will have a twofold effect-
first, it will deprive the petitioners of their economic viability, and second, it will restrict the
freedom of expression as compulsorily reducing the page limit will lead to reduction of
circulation and area of coverage for news and views.

— K.A. Abbas v. Union Of India9

The petitioner was a journalist, playwright, writer and film producer. He produced a short
film called A Tale of Four Cities, which depicted the contemporary realities of life in
Bombay (present-day Mumbai), Calcutta (present-day Kolkata), Delhi and Madras (present-

7
AIR 1987 SC 748.
8
AIR 1973 SC 106.
9
(1970) 2 SCC 780.

7|Page
 Constitutional Law I

day Chennai). The film contrasted the luxurious lives of the rich with the squalor of poverty.
He sought a U certificate from the Censor Board for unrestricted public viewing.

For granting a U certificate, the Censor Board’s Examining Committee recommended a

certificate that restricted public viewing to an audience of adults. This decision was
confirmed by the Revising Committee. On appeal, the Central Government recommended a
U certificate if a scene set in the red-light district was removed. The scene suggestively
portrayed immoral trafficking, prostitution and economic exploitation by pimps. The scene
was considered unsuitable for children.

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that his right to
freedom of expression was violated because, firstly, prior-censorship itself cannot be
tolerated in freedom of speech and expression, and secondly, if any censorship is allowed, it
must be on non-arbitrary grounds. The petitioner also asked for directions for a fixed time-
limit for a decision of the Censor Board as well as an alternative appellate mechanism to
approaching the Central Government; these were granted by the government and so were not
discussed by the Supreme Court.

The Court did not accept the distinction between prior censorship and censorship in general
and considered both to be governed by the standards of reasonable restrictions within Article
19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution recognized that freedom of speech and
expression was not an unrestricted right and therefore, reasonable restrictions could be
imposed. The absence of the word ‘reasonable’ in the Cinematograph Act was considered
inconclusive in this regard. Prior censorship was permitted under the Constitution for public
order or tranquility. The Court referred to the guardianship role of the Courts as the legal
protector of citizens in preserving public interest.

With respect to the issue of insufficient guidelines in the Act and the arbitrary exercise of
powers under the Act, the Court found that the guidelines given under the Act read with
Article 19(2) of the Constitution were sufficiently clear. However, it recommended that the
guidelines draw a distinction between artistic expression and non-artistic expression in
assessing obscenity. This alone was however considered insufficient to strike down the
provisions of the Act.

8|Page
 Constitutional Law I

New Dimensions Of Freedom Of Speech And Expression

Apart from the old conventional forms of freedom of speech and expression, new dimensions
have emerged due to advancement of technology in various fields.

Government has no monopoly on electronic media: 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. The government can impose restrictions on such a right only on grounds specified in
clause (2) of Art. 19 and not on any other ground. 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.10

Commercial Advertisements: The court held that commercial speech (advertisement) is a

part of the freedom of speech and expression. The court however made it clear that the
government could regulate the commercial advertisements, which are deceptive, unfair,
misleading and untruthful. Examined from another angle the Court said that the public at
large has a right to receive the "Commercial Speech". Art. 19(1)(a) of the constitution not
only guaranteed freedom of speech and expression, it also protects the right of an individual
to listen, read, and receive the said speech.

Telephone Tapping: Invasion on right to privacy : Telephone tapping violates Art. 19(1)(a)
unless it comes within grounds of restriction under Art. 19(2). Under the guidelines laid down
by the Court, the Home Secretary of the centre and state governments can only issue an order
for telephone tapping. The order is subject to review by a higher power review committee and
the period for telephone tapping cannot exceed two months unless approved by the review
authority.

10
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/freedom-of-speech-and-expression-
constitutional-law-essay.php

9|Page
 Constitutional Law I

Reasonable Restrictions
Limitations imposed by Art. 19(2) serve a twofold purpose, viz., on the one hand, they
specify that these freedoms are not absolute; on the other hand, they put a limitation on the
power of the legislature to restrict these freedoms.

Three significant characteristics of clause 19(2) are:

1. The restrictions under this clause can be imposed only by or under the authority of
law; no restriction can be imposed by executive action alone without there being a law
to back it up.
2. Each restriction must be reasonable.
3. A restriction must be related to the purposes mentioned in Sec. 19(2).

The various restrictions imposed by the state on this particular Fundamental Right is as
follows -

— Security Of State— Security of state is of vital importance and a government must

have power to impose restriction on the activity affecting it. Under Article 19(2) reasonable
restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of security of
State. However the term “security” is very crucial one. 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.

This matter came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of
Madras.11 In this case, The ground of the “security of state” was invoked, along with its ally
“the overthrow of the State” by the State of Madras for meeting the challenges to the
constitutionality under article 19 (1) (a) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act
1949. The material section 9(1A)—of the Act authorized the Provincial Government to
prohibit or regulate the entry into, or the circulation, sale or distribution in, the Province of

11
AIR 1950 SC 124

10 | P a g e
 Constitutional Law I

Madras any document or class of documents for the purpose of securing the safety or the
maintenance of public order in the province.

—Friendly Relations With Other Foreign Nationals — It is imperative

in the closed but disturbed world of today that friendly relations with foreign states should be
cultivated and maintained in national as well as international interests. Therefore, legislative
sanctions have got to be prescribed against “systematic diffusion of deliberately false and
distorted reports which undermine friendly relations between peoples or States.” These
considerations must have guided the framers of the first amendment which inserted in article
19 (2) this ground.12 The object of this exception is to prevent libels against foreign state in
the interest of maintaining friendly relations with them.

Under Article 367(3), a foreign State means any State other than India. The President,
however, may, subject to any law made by Parliament, by order declare any State not to be a
foreign State for such purposes as may be specified in the order. The above Order came to be
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Jagannath Sathu v. Union of India.13 The petitioner was
detained under the Preventive Detention Act 1950. The allegation against him was that he
used to send for publication to a foreign newspaper dispatch of news and views containing
false, incomplete, one-sided and misleading information about the State of Jammu and
Kashmir. These dispatches were not only prejudicial to the Government of India vis-a-
vis Pakistan but also to the relations of India with foreign powers in general.

—Public order —Next restriction prescribed by constitution is to maintain 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 tranquillity which prevails
among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the
Government which they have established.”

Here it is pertinent to look into meaning of the word “Public order. Public order is something
more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. ‘Public order’ is synonymous with public
peace, safety and tranquility. Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace
12
Venkataramiah, pp. 40-41.
13
AIR 1960 SC 675

11 | P a g e
 Constitutional Law I

disturbs public order. Thus communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object
of accusing 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 Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar14,the Court look the position that when a provision of law is
capable of two interpretations, one of which makes it constitutional and the other
unconstitutional, the interpretation which makes it constitutional should be preferred.
Accordingly, the Court ruled that a mere criticism of government action, however strongly
worded, would be consistent with the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and
expression. Only the words having the pernicious tendency, or intended to create disturbance
of law and order would be penal in the interests of public order.

In Ramji Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh15, Sec. 295A of the I.P.C. was attacked. This section
makes it penal to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens or to insult the
religious beliefs of that class deliberately and maliciously. The petitioner was editor, printer
and publisher of a monthly magazine “Gaurakshak” devoted to cow protection. He was
convicted under this provision for publishing an article in this magazine.

—Decency and morality — A society is bound to decay without maintaining high

standards of decency and morality. It is imperative for its preservation that the base, carnal
and low instincts of its members must be curbed. Hence, the need arose to include the ground
“decency or morality” in Art. 19(2). These terms are of variable content having no fixed
meaning for ideas about decency or morality vary from society to society and time to time
depending on the standards of morals prevailing in the contemporary society.16 The ordinary
dictionary meaning of decency indicates that the action must be in conformity with the
current standards of behavior or propriety, etc.17

14
AIR 1962 SC 955
15
AIR 1957 SC 620
16
Jain, supra note 1, p. 1109
17
Kashyap, supra note 5, p. 620

12 | P a g e
 Constitutional Law I

The Indian Penal Code in Ss. 292 to 294 lists some of the offences like selling obscene
books, selling obscene things to young persons, committing an obscene act, or singing an ob-
scene song in a public place. S. 292, I.P.C., has been held valid because the law against ob-
scenity seeks no more than to promote public decency and morality.

The test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprive
and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a
publication of this sort is likely to fall.18

The question as to when some utterance or publication was indecent or obscene arose
in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra19 wherein a bookseller in Bombay was persecuted
and convicted under S. 492 IPC for selling and keeping an obscene book ‘Lady Chatterley’s
Lover’. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction applying what is known as the Hicklin
test as the right test to determine obscenity. The test laid down by Chief Justice Cockburn
in Queen v. Hicklin20 is:

“Whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this
sort may fall… It is quite certain that it would suggest to the minds of the young of either sex,
or even to persons of more advanced years, thoughts of a most impure and libidinous
character.”

—Contempt of court — 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 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

18
R. v. Hicklin, (1868) 3 Q.B. 360
19
AIR 1965 SC 881
20
(1868) 3 Q.B. 360

13 | P a g e
 Constitutional Law I

interest. In C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta21, the respondent, party to an appeal pending before
the Supreme Court, published and circulated a pamphlet in public purporting to ascribe bias
and dishonesty to Justice Shah. It read as saying that Justice Shah had made up his mind to
give judgment against him, that he did not listen to the arguments. The Supreme Court held
the respondent guilty of committing gross contempt of court and the judges.

In a recent case, Indirect Tax Practitioners’ Association v. R. K. Jain22, the respondent was
the editor of a law journal, ‘Excise Law Times’. A contempt petition was filed by the
petitioner association against the respondent on the ground that he wrote an editorial in the
issue dated 1.6.2009 which amounted to criminal contempt under Sec. 2(c) of the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971. In the editorial the respondent had highlighted the irregularities in the
functioning of a judicial tribunal.

The Supreme Court held that a person like the respondent can aptly be described as
a whistleblower for the system who has tried to highlight the malfunctioning in the judicial
system and there is no reason to silence such a person. 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”.

—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 anything
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. In a latest case Kokan Unnati Mitra
Mandal & Ors. v. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. & Ors.23 the defendant newspaper published a
news article stating that illegal allotment of cement was done to various parties in rationed
era of cement during tenure of plaintiff as Chief Minister. The publication of the said fact was
not based upon hearsay but was made after proper investigation by the journalists of
defendant newspaper by actually going to site and taking photographs of storage and
movement of cement. Thus, no malice could be shown on part of the defendant. The Bombay

21
AIR 1971 SC 1132
22
(2010) 8 SCC 281
23
AIR 2012 (NOC) 122 (Bom.)

14 | P a g e
 Constitutional Law I

High Court held that the publication was made in public interest and hence there was no
defamation of the plaintiff. Court said that it would be reluctant to put fetters upon an
apprehended and expected libel if it could be justified and was not untrue.

—Incitement to an offence — ‘Incitement to an offence’ was added as a ground of

restriction by the Constitutional (First Amendment) Act, 1951. This ground permits
legislation not only to punish or prevent incitement to commit serious offences like murder
which lead to breach of public order, but also to commit any offence, which according to the
General Clause Act, means ‘any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time
being in force.’ Hence, it is not permissible to instigate another to do any act which is
prohibited and penalized by any law.

This is a broad concept and so it is possible for the Legislature to create an offence and make
incitement thereto punishable. In this way, the freedom of speech can be effectively
circumscribed as any subject can be precluded from public discussion by making it an
offence.

—Sedition —Sedition is not mentioned in Art. 19(2). Sec. 124-A of the IPC defines the
offence of sedition as follows: “Whoever by words either spoken or written, or by signs or by
visible representation or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or
excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India
shall be punished…”

In Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar24, the Supreme Court held that Sec. 124-A was limited to acts
involving an intention or a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of law and order or
incitement to violence and was not violative of Art. 19(1)(a) read with Art. 19(2).

From above analysis, it is evident that Grounds contained in Article 19(2) show that they
are all concerned with the national interest or in the interest of the society. The first set of
grounds i.e. the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations

24
AIR 1962 SC 955

15 | P a g e
 Constitutional Law I

with foreign States and public order are all grounds referable to national interest, whereas, the
second set of grounds i.e. decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to
an offence are all concerned with the interest of the society.

Conclusion
Since ancient times, man has attached great importance to his fundamental right of
expression. He regarded this right as his proud possession. He defended this right with all his
might. If necessary, he even laid down his life to uphold this precious right. History is replete
with examples of thousands of men, women, intellectuals, philosophers, artists, writers,
politicians, etc, having fought and sacrificed their lives for the sake of this freedom.

It can be easily concluded that right to freedom of speech and expression is one of the most
important fundamental rights. It includes circulating one’s views by words or in writing or
through audio-visual instrumentalities, advertisements or through any other communication
channel. It also comprises of right to information, freedom of press etc. Thus, this
fundamental right has a vast scope. From the above case law analysis, it is evident that the
Court has always placed a broad interpretation on the value and contents of Article 19(1)(a),
making it subjective only to the restrictions permissible under Article 19(2). Efforts by
intolerant authorities to curb or choke this freedom have always been firmly repelled, more so
when public authorities have betrayed tyrannical tendencies.

It is imperative to understand the fact that as long as the Fundamental Right under Article 19
is vital for the citizens of the country, imposing plausible restrictions on such an article of
immense importance is equally relevant. It can also be comprehended that public order holds
a lot of significance as a ground of restriction on this fundamental right. But there should be
reasonable and proper nexus or relationship between the restriction and achievement of
public order. The words 'in the interest of public order' include not only utterances as are
directly intended to lead to disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder.

16 | P a g e
 Constitutional Law I

Reference
 Jain, supra note 1, p. 1109
 Kashyap, supra note 5, p. 620
 Venkataramiah, pp. 40-41.
 https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/freedom-
of-speech-and-expression-constitutional-law-essay.php
 Article 19, UDHR.

17 | P a g e