List of cases

 Avtar Bhogal Singh and Another v. The Joint Secretary, Ministry Of

Information And Broadcasting Government Of India(if due to urgency
and emergency no prior hearing can be granted to the party affected
before passing of order of suspension of exhibition of film, at least the
post-decisional hearing must be offered to the parties affected
without any delay.”)( natural justice is essential to implementing
suspension order under Section 6(2) of the said act)
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (held that that a fair opportunity of
being heard following immediately the order impounding the
passport would satisfy the mandate of natural justice)(Justifying post
decisional hearing if not feasible to conduct pre-decisional hearing)
 H.L.Treahan v. Union of India ( Condition justifying post decisional
hearing )
 S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (the Supreme Court held that speech
that has the potential to create public disorder or disturbance of
public peace is not protected by the freedom of speech and
expression.)
 K.I. Shephard v. Union of India(Post Decisional Hearing not a
substitute for pre-decisional hearing)
 Sony Pictures v. The State(Hearing of greviances of sect alleged to be
‘offended’)
 Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd(companies have
right to carry business under Article 19of constitution)
 Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India(Article 19(1)(a) applies to
companies and also extends to corporations, including newspapers
and other media companies.)
 Pushpa Iyer v. Registrar of Newspapers for India, (the Supreme Court
has held that the State can only impose reasonable restrictions on the
exhibition of films on the grounds specified in Article 19(2) of the
Constitution and cannot ban the exhibition of films outright)
 Kishore Singh Raghuvanshi v. Union of India(estrictions cannot be
imposed on a mere probability a film can cause disharmony among
different religious groups and hamper the sovereignty and integrity
of India)
 Ghosh v. Avijit(the honourable high court of Calcutta has held that
artistic expression cannot be curtailed on the ground of offending the
decency or morality of society. Hence infringement of decency and
morality is not a valid ground for the decision of govt.)
 Kamal Haasan v. State of Tamil Nadu(No doubt, for maintaining law
and order, the authority competent is entitled to pass an order, but
that does not mean that a section of society can curtail the
fundamental rights of a citizen)
