3.

That the Security and Solidarity Act 2018 is not ultra vires and does not violate the
constitutional provisions.
Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country and, thus, this
provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly
manner, without using offensive language. Article 19(1)(b) confers the right to assemble and,
thus, guarantees that all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
But this right is not absolute and there can be restr. that can be placed on the same which
Article 19(2) states:-
Article 19(2) of Latverian Constitution states that “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”
In Rama. Muthuramalingam v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police the court held that
the rights of freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably are
subject to reasonable restr. from the point of view of public order, security of State, etc., and
they are not absolute rights.

There had been similar laws which are held to be constitutional:-

The Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) prohibits any assembly of five or
more people in an area where it has been imposed.
According to the law, every member of such "unlawful assembly" can be booked for
"engaging in rioting". The maximum punishment for such act is three years. Moreover,
obstructing police from breaking up an unlawful assembly is a punishable offence as well.
Anticipatory restr. are imposed generally in cases of eme. , where there is an apprehended
danger of some event that has the potential to cause major public nuisance or damage to
public tranquility. The gist of action under S.144 is the urgency of the situation; its efficacy is
the likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful occurrences. Preservation of the public
peace and tranquility is the primary function of the Government.
In the case of Acharya Jagdisharanand Avadhut v Police Commissioner, Calcutta where
the Anand Margis were prohibited from conducting Tandava dance on the streets or carry
skulls in their processions, by an order of the Commissioner under section 144 of the code
Hidayutallah, C. J., stated in the celebrated case of Madhu Likaye v S.D.M. Monghyr, that
section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not unconstitutional if properly applied and
the fact that it may be abused is no ground for it's being struck down. And the provisions of
the Code properly understood are not in excess of the limits laid down in the Constitution for
restricting the freedom guaranteed in it and that is precisely why the Court held that section
144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is valid and Constitutional.
Since the propriety of the order is open to challenge, it cannot be said that by reason of the
wide amplitude of the power which section 144 confers on certain magistrates, it places
unreasonable restrictions on certain FR. The conferment of such wide powers on the
Magistrate does not therefore amount to an infringement of the rights guaranteed under the
Constitution. The petitioner here challenged the provision as giving arbitrary powers to the
Magistrate. For calling the power not as arbitrary the court said that as this power can only be
exercised in cases of eme.
SSA 2018 was enacted which aimed to restore the status quo in Latverian archipelago. The
security of State and public order was at stake. Therefore, working with article 19(2) SSA
does not violate the provisions of constitution as Govt. is allowed to make rules or laws
restricting FR given under Article 19(1) but the restri. must be on those grounds as specified
in Article 19(2).