THE COMPARISON OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN INDIA,

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND NORTH KOREA

Ms. Raksha H R
Law Student, Christ University,
Bangalore

Abstract: Freedom of speech and expression is considered to be an important part of

the wide sphere of human rights. There have been certain disputes regarding this
right as can be seen in the recent political and social sphere all over the world.
There are some countries that grant rights to a citizen without any restrictions at all
and these countries recognize the importance of individuality and the free expression
of ideas of a human being. Whereas, there are some countries who also place
different degrees of restriction on right to expression due to various reasons like
threat to national security or violence which may result due to disagreeable
opinions. Hence, the interpretation of this right depends on the specific country and
its socio-economic and political structure, the history and the government which is
ruling and making laws. These disparities help a person to highlight the different
nature of each system and different laws regarding this human right. This research
mainly focuses on the comparative analysis of freedom of expression in three
countries – India, the US and North Korea and the degree or amount of restrictions
if imposed on the people to exercise this right. It also focuses on the constitutional
aspects of this right in the three countries and the dynamism or evolution it has
witnessed over the years.

1. INTRODUCTION
Human beings have been endowed with the special gift of communication, which is the main
distinguishing factor when compared to other occupiers of the globe. The psychological
ability of a human brain to formulate thoughts and to convey it in the form of self-expression
is evident. The freedom of expression has directly originated from natural law and freedom is
one among the most important inalienable rights that is embodied in an individual1.
Believing that the right to freedom of expression and speech has emanated from the concepts
of natural law, the whole idea has undergone an evolution over the past decades. The freedom
of expression has become a global issue, especially with regard to whether a restriction needs
to be imposed on this or not. It becomes important to understand the right to free speech as
practiced in various places. The comparison becomes necessary because the countries are no
longer detached from the other parts of the world and also because they are interconnected.
This can be evidently seen in instances such as the involvement of the US and UK in the
Syrian crisis2 as well as the global outrage on North Korea3.

Why the above mentioned countries are chosen?

The topic that is presented in this paper is of contemporary relevance and many recent events
happening in our country corresponds to this. One of the most famous and recent events is the
JNU incident where the dispute focused on the conflict between right to free speech and
sedition laws4. There have been instances of threats against journalists for disclosing certain
information on the media as well. The US, over the years has adopted a completely
liberalized form of government though this has become possible due to various events over
the centuries. Due to absence of restrictions, it functions as an ideal for the purpose of

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 73

comparison. In North Korea, the most heinous methods of human rights violation are
adopted5. This scenario enables to study the issue with the viewpoint of a worsened situation
in the country and the cruel mechanisms the state adopts to inhibit the citizens. Also, if
viewed in the economic perspective the US, India and North Korea are capitalistic, mixed and
socialistic respectively. This allows for a diverse comparison as the intervention of the state is
interlinked with the freedom an individual experiences.

2. OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The objectives include:
1. To know about the nature right to freedom of speech as written down in the
constitutions of India, the US and North Korea.
2. To trace the evolution of this right in history to the present scenario.
3. To reflect upon certain case laws that has focused on this right.
The methodology followed in this research is conceptual. The information collected is
secondary in nature from databases such as hein online, Jstor, relevant articles on the web and
books that reflect upon the subject.

3. OBSERVATION
Objective 1: To know about the nature right to freedom of speech as written down in
the constitutions of India, the US and North Korea.
India
The preamble to the constitution of our country was adopted on 26 November 1949 and one
th

of the important words in it is ―liberty‖6 which includes freedom of thought, belief,

expression, speech and worship7. The aspect of liberty which is free speech is enshrined in
article 19 of the Indian constitution. In order to understand the genesis of this we can focus on
the constituent assembly debates. It was said that freedom of speech is the very life of civil
liberties, the means by which voice of minorities can be heard and a tool to prevent injustice8.
After the objective resolution was adopted, advisory committee was constituted and one of
the subcommittees was on fundamental rights, which was headed by Acharya Kriplani9. BN
Rau prepared a draft report based on the recommendations of the subcommittee. The report
contained two types of rights- justifiable and non-justifiable rights. Freedom of speech and
expression belonged to the former category. This report was further sent to the advisory
committee and the constituent assembly10. There were deliberations on certain terms like
‗morality‘ which was used in the draft section and whether freedom of press must be included
as a part of the bill. But, Dr BR Ambedkar believed that freedom of press is implicit in the
section and the people in the press were individual citizens who were entitled to fundamental
rights11. Hence, freedom of press did not require a special mention.
After renumbering and rearranging the sections of the bill, freedom of speech and expression
was included in article 1912. Thereafter, certain amendments were made to the article13. The
first amendment in 1951 removed the words slander and libel that was included previously.
The sixteenth amendment act in 1963 added ‗sovereignty and integrity of India‘ to clause (2)
of article 19.
At present, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute as per the constitution itself.
Article 19(2), imposes certain reasonable restrictions in exercising this right in the interests of
security and integrity of the nation.

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 74

United States of America
Like India, the preamble to the constitution of the US14 also includes the words ‗blessing of
liberty on ourselves‘. The constitution of the country was signed in 1787 in Philedelphia
which was presided over by George Washington. The most significant developments to the
constitution came only in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was passed by the parliament15. It is
this set of ten amendments to the constitution that grants human rights and freedom to the
citizens of United States explicitly. The first amendment talks about right to speech and
expression16.

North Korea
The constitution of this country was enacted in 1972 and the amended constitution was
adopted in September 1998. Part 5 of the constitution, deals with fundamental rights and
duties of citizens. Article 67 talks about freedom of speech17. It reads as – ―Citizens are
guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association. The
State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social
organizations.‖ If the latter part of the sentence is observed here, the state is given
unrestricted power to set the conditions for free speech and other such activities.

Objective 2: To trace the evolution of this right in history to the present scenario.
India
During the British colonial rule over India, a tract named ‗Rangeela Rasol‘ was brought into
picture which was alleged to contain offensive stories against prophet Muhammad‘s personal
life. It was said to be published by one of the members of the Arya Samaj and this created a
huge strife between the Hindu and the Muslim community. This is the roots of section 295A18
of the IPC which is the closest law for blasphemy India has. This section basically punishes
those who maliciously intend and cause harm to the sentiments of certain religious ideas or
their followers. This act experienced certain changes after the British era19. In 1957, it was
amended by the Supreme Court where it said that arbitrarily imposing such restrictions would
curtail the fundamental right of an individual and hence the for ‗deliberate and malicious
intention‘ was included in the section in order to punish those that intended to cause such
disturbance and hider the tranquillity between the communities in our country. The most
recent and widely known controversy where this section was put into limelight was during
the time when Iran‘s Ayotalla Khomeini issued a fatwa against Satanic Verses written by
Salman Rushdie. The book incited widespread condemnation and violence as it was alleged
to be blasphemous and hurtful to the Muslim sentiments. In this instance, the right of the
author to freely express his views was restricted which forced him to change his identity and
go into hiding as he also received death threats from such sections of the community who
were deeply angered by his words.
Though in our country there is sufficient scope for freely expressing one‘s ideas and
thoughts, freedom of speech and expression is not devoid of restrictions as mentioned above.
There are certain instances that bring us to think whether this right must be made absolute or
not. In the recent past there have been situations like the hue and cry in JNU, in which it was
held initially that Kanaiah Kumar‘s statements were seditious in nature. But, later he was
released on bail. The conflict between sedition and freedom of speech still persists. Recently
there have been violent protests against the screening of the movie Padmavati as well which
is claimed to have insulted the religious sentiments of certain sections of the society20. There
again arises a conflict between right to expression in the form of art and censorship. This

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 75

brings us to ponder over the degree of reasonable restrictions that needs to be placed on the
right, if needed.
On the whole it can be concluded that, India grants to its citizens certain set of fundamental
rights, one of which is right to free thought, speech and expression to a certain reasonable
extent as mentioned in part 3 of the constitution of the country.

United States of America

The Americans fought with the colonial power mainly to attain ‗liberty‘ and freedom of
speech and expression is a basic tenet of this. The British colonized America for a long
period of time and they turned against the British only when they were convinced that their
individual autonomy and liberty was at stake. Due to the colonization, the American
subcontinent was largely influenced by the British ideas of liberty and free speech. In
England, especially after the invention of the printing press in 1476, the crown was critical of
opinions being published and printed21. Hence, there were many restrictions against this22.
America being a colony was also subjugate to this rule. But, unlike in England, the practice
of free speech in America was a precursor to the right of free speech itself and this could
happen mainly because of the vast distance between the mother country and America23.
In the period between 1776 and 1791, the freedom of speech in America was practiced in its
true sense where people actually came out with their opinions and wildly criticized the
government. This also shows that freedom of expression was practiced even before the right
was explicitly granted. Initially in 1787, when the US constitution was first introduced, it did
not include any clause that granted to its citizens the liberty to speak. In 1789, James Madison
introduced the draft of ‗Bills of Rights‘24 which were 12 amendments to the constitution, in
the parliament which was later adopted in 1791. This bill was opposed by the federalists and
Roger Sherman was one of the main opponents of including Bill of rights in the constitution.
Nevertheless, 10 out of 12 amendments proposed in the bill were adopted on 15 Decemberth

1791. The first amendment talks about right to speech and expression25.
After the enactment of bill of rights certain events like the World War 1, the civil war and
slavery threatened the free practice of this liberty. In 1798, during the presidency of John
Adam, the US was at loggerheads with France which pushed the states to the brink of war.
This was referred to as the ‗fever of 1798‘26. In order to maintain national security, the
sedition law27 was enacted during this period. This law was totally against the first
amendment act. However, according to Section 4 of the act, it stated that it would be in force
until March 3 , 1801 and not after that. The then Vice president Thomas Jefferson was totally
rd

against this law. Jefferson and James Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia reforms
respectively which were adopted by the states of Kentucky and Virginia28. It basically stated
that the state does cannot enact laws that were against the civil liberties of the citizens. In the
next election, Adams lost his seat and subsequently the sedition law ceased to exist. This law
is considered to be a black mark on the American history.
The dark age of slavery which subsequently lead to the civil war was one of those time
periods where the right to freedom of speech and expression was most exploited in the
country. Slaves were treated as mere objects and let alone their right to free speech; their
right to life was also not given any importance. Slavery first traces its origin to 1619 when the
Dutch ship brought slaves to the state of Virginia. They were mainly transported to work in
the tobacco fields and even later, over the 17 and the 18 centuries slaves were employed to
th th

work under rich landlords, in the plantations29. It was mainly because African slaves were
cheap to buy and the minds of the Whites were filled with racism that they deprived their

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 76

slaves of basic fundamental rights. From 1830s the abolition of slavery gained momentum
and finally the civil war occurred30. During this period around 4 million slaves were freed
and Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected as the president. His views
supported the protection of fundamental rights of citizens and he advocated antislavery. The
13 amendment that was adopted in 1865 abolished slavery. But, even then the slaves were
th

not yet fully freed. Finally, the slaves were emancipated during the ‗reconstruction‘ and the
civil rights movement in the 1960s31.

North Korea
Korea before partition was under the Japanese rule. When the Japanese lost control at the end
of World War 2, the Korean subcontinent was put through a cold war. The southern part was
supported by the US and the northern part was taken over by the soviet. The country was
divided across the ‗38 parallel‘. But, in 1950 a war broke out when troupes were sent from
th

the north to the southern part. The troupe comprised of around 75000 people who marched to
the 38 parallel and all this occurred under the regime of the then popular North Korean
th

leader Kim II Sung. Since North Korea was taken over by Soviet Russia, communist
ideologies prevailed and Kim II Sung propagated the same32. He brought in the ‗Juche‘33
ideology which basically promotes self-reliance and believes that man is the master and
creator of everything. The entire party of ‗Democratic People of Korea (DPRK)‘ believes and
is based on this. This philosophy of Juche is believed to be a slight deviation, but nonetheless
derived from the Marxist-Lenin ideology and it is evident because Sung was a communist34.
From the very beginning, during the his regime, individuality and expression of any one
person was not given much importance because he believed in ‗collective good‘ and the well-
being as a whole rather than the realization of something individual like the fundamental
rights. So, the roots of the country lies in the fact those rights are conditional and not
universal as such.
When Sung‘s son Kim Jong -il came into power, the same ideology of Juche was carried
forward. The rights of a citizen mainly depended on the loyalty and obedience that he offered
to the nation and it is the role of the state or the government to decide the loyalty that need to
be commanded from every individual. On the lines of the Juche ideology, Jong wanted the
state to be self-reliant, self-sufficient and in a position to survive and prosper on its own35.
Currently, the leader of North Korea is Kim Jong-un who is the son of Kim Jong-il.
The authoritarian regime that is being followed by the current leader can be traced back to
history as it is from the previous rulers that such values and principles were embedded as the
fulcrum of politics and this is passed on from one generation to the next.

Objective 3: To reflect upon certain case laws that has focused on this right.
India
In order to understand this better certain landmark judgements can be considered. In the case
of ‗Romesh Thapar v State of Madras,‘36 Justice Patanjali Shastri observed that the right to
freedom of speech and expression included free press and circulation of ideas. This particular
case was filed by Romesh Thapar who was prohibited from publishing his magazine ‗Cross
roads‘ by the state. This case also led to the first amendment to the article.
In the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union Of India37, the petitioner filed a case because her
passport was impounded without any reasonable reasons given by the passport authorities.
The authorities claimed that the action was taken to ensure public order which was later

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 77

declared by the court as a reason not valid and which violated her fundamental right. It was
held in this case that there was unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression
of the petitioner which violates article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. It was also said that the act
of the defendant violated article 21, which when interpreted includes liberty to travel and it
also violated article 14 of the constitution. This provided a wider perspective to article 19(1)
(a) itself because it was read in consonance with article 14 and article 21 of the constitution.
Bijoe Emmanuel and others v State of Kerala38 is another case where the appellants were
three children who belonged to a sect known as Jehova‘s witnesses and they believed that
they must pray none other than Jehova and their principles forbade them to sing the national
anthem. They stood silent during the national anthem but it was reported that they did not
show any form of disrespect towards the national anthem. The school refused to admit the
children. It was held in the judgement that the actions of the school authorities violated article
19(1)(a) because the children were restrained from freely expressing their thoughts and it was
also said that the right to remain silent was a part of the above article. Further it was said that
the actions against the students were mere ‗departmental instructions‘ and this violated their
fundamental right. Finally it was said that it is not mentioned anywhere that the national
anthem must be compulsorily sung and moreover the children would stand whenever the
anthem was played as a mark of respect. The above case depicts the widening interpretation
of the article during the due course of time and as it is studied in various scenarios39.
Though in our country there is sufficient scope for freely expressing one‘s ideas and
thoughts, freedom of speech and expression is not devoid of restrictions as mentioned above.
There are certain instances that bring us to think whether this right must be made absolute or
not. In the recent past there have been situations like the hue and cry in JNU, in which it was
held initially that Kanaiah Kumar‘s statements were seditious in nature. But, later he was
released on bail40. The conflict between sedition and freedom of speech still persists.
Recently there have been violent protests against the screening of the movie Padmavati as
well which is claimed to have insulted the religious sentiments of certain sections of the
society. There again arises a conflict between right to expression in the form of art and
censorship. This brings us to ponder over the degree of reasonable restrictions that needs to
be placed on the right, if needed.
On the whole it can be concluded that, India grants to its citizens certain set of fundamental
rights, one of which is right to free thought, speech and expression to a certain reasonable
extent as mentioned in part 3 of the constitution of the country.

United States of America

The right to freedom of speech and expression has evolved from a restrictive form to a liberal
form as can be seen today. Patterson v Colorado41 was a case in 1907 where the defendant
had published cartoons critical of the US Supreme Court and a case was filed for contempt.
Finally, he was acquitted and the test adopted by the court was the ‗bad tendency test‘ which
basically said that right to freedom of speech was not granted if it had the tendency to disturb
or harm the general welfare of the society. In the case of ‗Schenck v US‘ in 1919, the ‗clear
and present danger test‘ was put forth. In the case, the defendant issued leaflets in order to
refrain people from joining the military and hence the court held that his actions were in
violation of the Espionage Act and the right to freedom of speech was restricted because of
the present danger in the society. But in the case of ‗Brandenburg v Ohio‘ 42 in the year 1969,
the previous judgements were overruled and the ‗imminent lawlessness action test‘ was
devised. In this case, the defendant who belonged to the Ku Klux Klan made statements in an

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 78

assembly against the government asking them to stop supporting the black race and to
advocate the white supremacy. A case was filed and he was acquitted because the court held
that if he were to be punished then it would be in violation of the first amendment and his
words did not cause immediate threat and lawlessness in the society.
In the case of Snyder v Phelps43 recently in 2011, Fred Phelps and his followers from the
Baptist Church had strong negative opinions about homosexuality especially in the military44.
Matthew Snyder, a soldier form the army was martyred and during his funeral the church
picketed and raised slogans which read as ‗thank god for dead soldiers‘. The petitioner filed a
case in the US court against that church claiming that they had published defamatory
statements. The jury of the district court awarded compensation to Snyder, but the fourth
circuit court of appeals reversed the decision and said that the words of the church was
protected by the first amendment to the constitution of the country. It justified that the church
made statements purely on public concerns and it believed that debate over political social
and community issues must be uninhibited45.
It can be seen in this case that the US Supreme Court has observed and concluded that the
citizens have the right to give opinions and viewpoints about any matter of public concern
and they are protected by the first amendment. They are no restrictions or inhibitions to this
right.

North Korea
North Korea as such does not disclose the cases that occur due to the suppression by the state
and the secretive nature of the government. If a person is found voicing his opinions against
the state, he and his family can be sent to political prison camps. The only voice in the
country is that of the ruling regime. Freedom of press is the last right that can be expected in
this country because even that is controlled by the regime46. During one of the most important
political events in North Korea which was the ‗7 congress of the Worker‘s Party of Korea‘,
th

journalists across the globe were invited to cover the event. They were always put through
security checks and were prevented from performing their job. During this course, Rupert
Wingfield Hayes who was the Tokyo correspondent of BBC was detained by the North
Korean government and he was questioned for 10 hours. The government claimed that some
of his statements had hurt the sentiments of the North Korean people47.
In the recent past, a similar incident of Otto Warmbrier, a student from the US who was put
into hard labor as he was accused of stealing a propaganda poster from a hotel. It was evident
that he was tortured and when his health conditions worsened he was sent back to his parents
in a totally disfigured state. He died on June 19 , 2017 due to lack of oxygen and other health
th

complications due to the hostile conditions he faced in North Korea48. The world is also
looking at this country with scepticism especially after the series of nuclear weapon launch
by the state.
A 2014 United Nations Commission of Enquiry report on North Korea recorded that there
was widespread prevalence of crimes against humanity like murders, rape, arrests and torture
without reasonable grounds, forced abortion, rape and other sexual offences49. Though the
country has ratified some of the key international treaties, in practice there is violation of
human rights which has resulted in an extreme situation. In the near future, the world is going
to take serious cognizance of this issue and most probably the UN may issue directives to the
government preventing it from breaching human rights and the necessary actions that need to
be taken in order to protect and preserve fundamental rights like the right to free speech and
expression.

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 79

4. Implications of the study
Practical implications: The three countries analyzed above represent varying degree of
freedom of speech and expression as granted by the government to its citizens. It can be seen
that the degree of freedom granted in India is comparatively better than that of North Korea
and many other countries like Sudan in the African subcontinent50, where widespread human
rights violation persists. We are fortunate enough to express our dissent against the
government through the press or other publications while this is met with sanction in North
Korea. Comparatively, the constitution of the United States grants unrestricted right of free
speech to its citizens while in our country there exists laws on sedition51 and other reasonable
restriction which inhibits the citizens from speaking and expressing as they wish. If the
countries are arranged on a comparative degree, the US provides unrestricted freedom to its
citizens, followed by India which ensures the right to all its citizens and North Korea where
there is continuous breach of human rights on a large scale.
In my opinion, as the meaning of Human Rights itself states, it is inalienable and universal.
We have progressed a long way. The world has experienced upheavals and animosities which
lead to revolutions, war and the like, notwithstanding the fact that some parts are of the globe
are still violent. As mentioned initially, human mind can conceive various ideas which may
be unique to the general norm. Preventing the expression of such ideas will lead to a loss of
creativity and free thinking mind-set in individuals. People must not suppress their views due
to the fear of the authoritarian regime and the existence of such a scenario prevents us from
speaking of progression and development from the past. Hence, a liberal mind-set and
ideology must be adopted and every person must have the right to express his views.
We need comprehensive legislation on each and every right guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution. That is why, right to information must be guaranteed by a strong legislation and the
process of law-making itself must be participatory; and (ii) we have not been able to create a culture
and climate where values of freedom, rights and a democratic way of life are respected. One of the
purposes of making laws like the right to information, which is primarily a human right, is to help to
create this culture
Thus, in a country like India which is socialist, secular and democratic, everyone has a right to
express their feelings. This right has been also protected by the Constitution of India. But, certain
restrictions have been imposed on this Fundamental Right so as to create a balance in the society. But,
in availing this right the Court should not only look at the interest of the society at large but also take
into consideration the intention of the creator of such thought or expression. If such thought or
expression helps in understanding the truth or the current scenario it should not be restricted merely
because it is not liked by a certain section of public or public unrest is apprehended.
As rightly quoted by Dr AR Lakshmanan, J in S Rangarajan7that While other clauses of Article 19
grant the right to do something, clause (a) grants the ‗freedom of right‘ to do something. It leads to the
creation of new ideas and knowledge, finding of truth, building tolerance and receptivity and is
essential for self-rule.

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 80

Endnotes
1. Felix Morley, The Natural Law and the Right to Self-Expression, 4 Nat. L. Inst. Proc. 75, 100
(1951)
2. Nicole Ostrand, The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Comparison of Responses by Germany,
Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States, 3 J. on Migration & Hum. Sec. 255, 279
(2015)
3. Brendan M. Howe; Jasper S. Kim, Legality, Legitimacy and Justifications for Military Action
against North Korea, 11 U. C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 229, 258 (2005)
4. http://www.thehindu.com/specials/in-depth/JNU-row-What-is-the-outrage-all-
about/article14479799.ece.
5. Goedde, P. Legal Mobilization for Human Rights Protection in North Korea: Furthering
Discourse or Discord? Human Rights Quarterly, 32(3), 530-574.(2010)
6. The preamble is taken from the objective resolution proposed by Pt Jawaharlal Nehru in 1946.
7. The preamble to the constitution of India reads as - ―We the people of India having solemnly
resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic and to
secure to all its citizens- Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship….
8. The statement was made by Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man in the constituent assembly debates
on December 2nd 1948.
9. The committee was constituted in February 1947.
10. In the first draft the article read as, "There shall be liberty for the exercise of following rights
subject to public order and morality, (a) The right of every citizen to freedom of speech and
expression. The publication or utterances of seditious, obscene, slanderous, libelous or
defamatory matter shall be actionable or punishable in accordance with law.‖
11. Samaraditya Pal with Deepan Kumar Sarkar, India‘s Constitution Origins and Evolution,
Volume 2 Articles 19 to 28, (2015).
12. The article now read as, ―All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and
expression (2) Nothing in sub - clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it relates to libel. Slander, defamation, contempt of court or any
matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or
tends to overthrow the state".
13. Samaraditya Pal with Deepan Kumar Sarkar, India‘s Constitution Origins and Evolution,
Volume 2 Articles 19 to 28,Pg 280,(2015).
14. The preamble reads as – ―We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.‖
15. Louis Henkin, American Bills of Rights: Age 200, 70 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 88, 90 (1976)
16. ‖Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.‖
17. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_1998.pdf?lang=e
n
18. The section reads as – ― Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings
of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.—Whoever, with deliberate and
malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by
words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults
or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with
fine, or with both.‖
19. SK Sarvaria, RA Nelson‘s Indian Penal Code, 10th Edition, Volume 2, Lexis Nexis, Pg 2558 –
2564 (2008).
20. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-lowdown-on-the-padmavati-
row/article20915252.ece.

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 81

 21. Cyndia Susann Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, Cambridge University press
(2001).
22. Freedom of Speech- A reference guide to the US constitution by Keith Werhan, pg 6 – 8
23. ―The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish
their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be
inviolable.‖ James Madison on June 8th 1789.
24. ‖Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.‖ The age of
federalism by Stanley Elkins and Eric Mckitrick(1993), pg 581
25. In section 2 of the act an offence was defined as,‖ To write, print, utter or publish, or cause it
to be done, or assist in it, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government
of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the President, with intent to defame, or
bring either into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against either the hatred of the people of
the United States, or to stir up sedition, or to excite unlawful combinations against the
government, or to resist it, or to aid or encourage hostile designs of foreign nations.‖
26. Koch, A., & Ammon, H. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: An Episode in Jefferson's
and Madison's Defense of Civil Liberties. The William and Mary Quarterly, 5(2), 145-
176.(1948).
27. Sedition is defined in Section 124A
28. www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery.
29. W. O. Blake, Compiler. History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern(1860).
30. W. O. Blake, Compiler. History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern(1860).
31. John David Smith, Lincoln and the US coloured troupes, Southern Illinois University Press
Pg 8 – 32 (2013).
32. Michael J Seth, A history of Korea – From antiquity to present. Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers. Pg 265 – 305, (2010).
33. Kim II Sung explains Juche as ―Establishing juche means, in a nutshell, being the master of
revolution and reconstruction in one‘s own country. This means holding fast to an
independent position, rejecting dependence on others, using one‘s own brains, believing in
one‘s own strength, displaying the revolutionary spirit of self-reliance, and thus solving one‘s
own problems for oneself on one‘s own responsibility under all circumstances.‖
34. The political philosophy of Juche, Grace Lee, Pg 105-112
35. The Evolution Of Human Rights Thinking in North Korea, Robert Weatherley & Song
Jiyoung, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics,2008
36. Citation - 1950 AIR 124 or 1950 SCR 594
37. 1978 AIR 597
38. 1987 AIR 748
39. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1508089/.
40. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Sedition-charge-against-Kanhaiya-Kumar-may-be-
dropped/article14086081.ece.
41. 205 U.S. 454 (1907)
42. 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
43. 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
44. Alex Bailin,Criminal Law Review,Criminalizing free speech? (2011)
45. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-
v-phelps, 23/12/2017
46. https://www.libertyinnorthkorea.org/learn-nk-challenges/, 23/12/2017
47. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36200530, 23/12/2017
48. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40308028, 23/12/2017
49. Human Rights Council, Report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on
human rights in the Democratic People‘s Republic of Korea, 25th session, Agenda item 4.

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 82

 https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/108/71/PDF/G1410871.pdf?OpenElement.
50. Omer Y. Elagab, Human Rights Situation in the Sudan: The Violation of the Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, The, 5 Finnish Y.B. Int'l L. 479, 489 (1994).
51. Sedition is defined in Section 124A as, ―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 with 1mprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or
with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with
fine. Explanation 1.—The expression ―disaffection‖ includes disloyalty and all feelings of
enmity. Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the
Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or
attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this
section. Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other
action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 83

REFERENCES
1. The constitutions of India, the US and North Korea.
2. Constitutional assembly debates on part 3 of the constitution or fundamental rights in India.
3. The Natural Law and the Right to Self-Expression, Felix Morely, 1951
4. Freedom of Speech- A reference guide to the US constitution by Keith Werhan, pg 6 – 8
5. The political philosophy of Juche, Grace Lee, Pg 105-112
6. The Evolution Of Human Rights Thinking in North Korea, Robert Weatherley & Song
Jiyoung, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics,2008
7. BBC News Magazine dated 20th May 2016 and 20th June 2017.
8. Nicole Ostrand, The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Comparison of Responses by Germany,
Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States, 3 J. on Migration & Hum. Sec. 255, 279
(2015)
Brendan M. Howe; Jasper S. Kim, Legality, Legitimacy and Justifications for Military Action
against North Korea, 11 U. C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 229, 258 (2005)
9. http://www.thehindu.com/specials/in-depth/JNU-row-What-is-the-outrage-all-
about/article14479799.ece.
10. Goedde, P. Legal Mobilization for Human Rights Protection in North Korea: Furthering
Discourse or Discord? Human Rights Quarterly,32(3), 530-574.(2010)
11. Samaraditya Pal with Deepan Kumar Sarkar, India‘s Constitution Origins and Evolution,
Volume 2 Articles 19 to 28,Pg 280,(2015).
12. SK Sarvaria, RA Nelson‘s Indian Penal Code, 10th Edition, Volume 2, Lexis Nexis, Pg 2559
(2008)
13. John David Smith, Lincoln and the US coloured troupes, Southern Illinois University Press
Pg 8 – 32 (2013).
14. Michael J Seth, A history of Korea – From antiquity to present. Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers. Pg 265 – 305, (2010).
15. The Evolution Of Human Rights Thinking in North Korea, Robert Weatherley & Song
Jiyoung, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics,2008
16. Alex Bailin, Criminal Law Review, Criminalizing free speech? (2011)
17. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-
summary-snyder-v-phelps, 23/12/2017
18. https://www.libertyinnorthkorea.org/learn-nk-challenges/, 23/12/2017
19. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36200530, 23/12/2017
20. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40308028, 23/12/2017

JIGNASA International Journal of Commerce & Management – January 2018 Page 84