Section- B

Article 19- Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

Bare Provision- 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

(1)All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions or co-operative societies;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(f) sub-clause (f) shall be omitted;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;and

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

(2) 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 ofthe 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.

(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, in the interests ofthe sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.

(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, in the interests ofthe sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.

(5) Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or
prevents the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the
said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.

(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the
State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in
so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,- [The following clause was substituted through
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951]

Case Law: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

A man, as a rational human being, desires to do many things, but at the same time, his desires need to be controlled
and restricted. Therefore, the Supreme Court opined that the fundamental freedom under Article 19(1) shall not be
absolute but should be restricted by some reasonable restrictions.

Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression

The freedom of speech and expression means the right to speak or express one's opinion through words, writing,
pictures, or any other form. This freedom includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek
and receive information. The phrase "freedom of speech and expression" has a wide interpretation and covers
different facets within its scope and content.

Scope of Article 19

1. Right to Know and Obtain Information

  Case Law: Nimit Sharma v. Union of India The court held that the freedom of speech and expression
includes the right to educate, inform, and entertain. It also includes the right to be educated,
informed, and entertained.

 Case Law: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India Citizens have the right to know every act of the public that is
done in a public way by public functionaries.

2. Right to Examine and Access Evaluated Scripts

3. Right of Citizen or Voter to Know the Antecedents of Candidates in Elections

 Case Law: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India

4. Right to Reply to Criticisms Against One's Views

5. Right to Silence

 Case Law: Bejoy Manuel v. State of Kerala (1971)

6. Right to Choose the Medium of Instruction

7. Right to Protest Against Sound Pollution

8. Freedom of the Press

 No pre-censorship of the press: liberty of press means printing without any previous license, subject
to the consequences of law. freedom of press means right to print and publish what one pleased and
without any previous permission.

 No pre-stoppage of publication in newspapers.

 Right of access to sources of information.

 Freedom of circulation (propagation of one's ideas and views).

 Case Law: Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras Liberty of circulation is as essential as liberty
of publication.

 Case Law: Sakal Papers Ltd v. Union of India There is full freedom in the volume of news,
and it should not depend on the price of newspapers.

 Case Law: Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India No excessive taxes on the press.

 Case Law: Indian Express Newspaper Ltd v. Union of India No indirect attacks on the press.

 Case Law: Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India All commercial advertisements cannot be
denied protection under Article 19(1)(a) merely because they are issued by businessmen.

9. Right to Exhibit Films

 Article 19(1)(a) prohibits state monopoly in print or electronic media.

 Case Law: Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of

Bengal The government has no monopoly on electronic media, and citizens have the right to
telecast and broadcast television or radio events through electronic media.

 Pre-censorship of films.

 Case Law: K.A. Abbas v. Union of India

10. Right to Fly the National Flag

 Case Law: Union of India v. Naveen Jindal

11. Right to Post Information on the Internet

  Case Law: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India The Supreme Court held that Section 66(a) of the IT Act,
2002, is arbitrary and invades the right of free speech as stated under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, the
court struck down Section 66(a).

12. Right to Demonstrate and Strike

 Case Law: Harish Uppal v. Union of India

13. No Right to Call for Blockades or Hartals

 Case Law: Bharat Kumar v. State of Kerala

 Case Law: Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar

Article 19(2): Reasonable Restrictions:

Case Law: Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court held that any action tending to violate another person's right to life guaranteed under Article 21
or putting national security at stake can never be justified under the freedom of speech and expression.

 Friendly relations with foreign states, inserted by the First Amendment in 1981.

 Public order:

 Case Law: Ramesh Thappad v. State of Madras The court held that the term "public order" is
broader than the term "security of the state."

 Decency or morality:

 Case Law: R.D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra

 Contempt of court:

 Case Law: Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court

 Incident to an offense, added by the 1st Amendment.

 Sovereignty and integrity, added by the 16th Amendment in 1963.

Article 19(1)(b): Freedom of Assembly

 Case Law: Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh The Supreme Court held that the right to assemble peaceably
and the right to hold meetings on private property are not protected under Article 19(1)(a). The right to
assembly granted under Article 19(1)(b) is a corollary to the right of freedom of speech.

Article 19(1)(c): Freedom to Form Associations

This freedom is essential for democracy, as without the freedom of association, no political party can be formed,
which is required for the proper functioning of parliamentary democracy. Freedom to form associations is also said
to be a corollary to the freedom of speech and expression.

 Scope of Article 19(1)(c): I. Right to be a member of an association voluntarily. II. Right of the state to
nominate members to societies. III. Right not to be a member of an association. IV. No right to continue in
government service. V. No prior restraint on the right to form associations. VI. No right to recognition by the
state. VII. No right to achieve the objectives of the association. VIII. No tearing the veil of any ignorance.

Article 19(1)(d) & 19(1)(e): Movement and Residing or Settling Freely

The right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d) means the right of locomotion, i.e., the right to move whenever one
likes, wherever one likes, and however one likes.
  Case Law: Ajay Canu v. UOI Articles 19(1)(d) & 19(1)(e) complement each other, as these rights are part of
the same fundamental freedom and often go together.

Article 19(1)(g): Practice of Any Profession, or to Carry on Any Occupation, Trade or Business

Occupation means any activity by which a person is occupied or engaged, an activity which the person undertakes as
a means of his livelihood. Profession means an occupation which requires some technical, intellectual, professional
skill which is coupled with some manual skill. Business means any activity which involves the production,
distribution, and consumption of material, services, resources, or well-being. Trade means an activity which involves
buying and selling of goods, whereas in there is an exchange of article or good either for barter or money or any
service rendered.

Scope of Article 19(1)(g):

1. Right to not start or close down the business.

 Case Law: Excel Wear v. UOI

2. No right to hold a particular job of one's choice.

 Case Law: Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. UOI

3. No right to carry on any anti-social or dangerous activity (Res extra commercium).

4. No right to carry on business or trade in liquor.

 Case Law: Khoday Distilleries Pvt. Ltd v. State of Karnataka

The Supreme Court held that citizens have no fundamental right to trade in activities which are
immoral, criminal, dangerous, obnoxious, or injurious to the health, safety, and welfare of the
general public. Therefore, the right to carry on trade in liquor was regarded as Res Extra
Commercium and outside the scope of Article 19(1)(g).

5. No right to carry on business with the government.

6. Right to impart education and establish educational institutions.

 Case Law: Unni Krishan v. State of A.P

 Case Law: T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

7. No right to impose goods.

8. Right against the sexual harassment of working women.

 Case Law: Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

9. No right against competition.

Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(1)(g)

Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) may amount to total prohibition only in certain special circumstances.

 Case Law: Sushila Saw Mills v. State of Odessa

Article 20- Protection in respect of conviction for offence:
Protection in respect of conviction for offences

(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of
the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under
the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Divided into three parts:

Ex post facto

A.20 Double jeopardy

Self incrimination

1. Ex Post Facto [Article 20(1)]

2. Double Jeopardy [Article 20(2)]

3. Self-incrimination [Article 20(3)]

1. Ex Post Facto [Article 20(1)]

It means a law which is enacted subsequent to its occurrence. It has three kinds:

a. An act or omission declared as an offence for the first time after its commission. "Lex Prospicit non respicit" means
the law looks forward and not backward.

 Case Law: Lily Thomas v. UOI

 Case Law: Sarla Mugal v. UOI

 Case Law: Maruram v. UOI

b. A law which enhances the punishment after its commission.

c. A law describing a new procedure for prosecution after its commission.

Article 21(1) provides for beneficial ex post facto law as its protection is only in the case of enhanced punishment
and does not bar any reduction in punishment.

2. Double Jeopardy: Article 20(2)

Maxim: "Nemo debet bis vexari"

Article 21(1) is identical to the English doctrine of autrefois convict which is mentioned in sec. 300 Cr.PC.

Essentials of Article 20(1):

1. The person must be accused of an offence.

2. The person must have been prosecuted before the court or judicial tribunal (It means the proceedings are of a
criminal nature).

 Case Law: Muqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay

3. A person must have been punished after his prosecution before the court or judicial tribunal.

4. The person must be prosecuted for the 2nd time before the court or judicial tribunal - it means that the
prosecution or subsequent proceeding must be specifically for the 2nd time and not as a continuation of the
previous proceedings.

5. The offence must be seen in both the proceedings.

3. Self-Incrimination: Article 20(3)

Maxim: "Nemo tenetur prodere accusare seipsum"

This maxim means no man is bound to accuse himself. It is also known as the Miranda principle.

Essentials of Article 20(3):

1. A person accused of an offence.

 Case Law: Nandini Satpati v. P.L. Dani

2. Protection against compulsion to be a witness.

3. Compulsion to give evidence against himself.

 Case Law: Salvy v. State of Karnataka

The case relates to tests like brain mapping, narco analysis, DNA polygraph, etc. It was held
that such tests amount to forcible interference with a person's mental processes, thereby
infringing his right to privacy under Article 21 and Article 20(3).
Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty:
Bare provision- 21. Protection of life and personal liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Article 21 is considered the heart of the Constitution and is considered to be the foundation of all laws.

Meaning of Life: Right to life does not merely mean the continuation of one's existence but rather a quality life. It
means there should be full opportunity to develop one’s standard and potential to the highest possible level in
society. Right to life covers life with reasonable standards of comfort and decency.

Different Facets of Right to Life:

1. Right to live with human dignity.

 Case Law: Frances Coraille v. UT of Delhi

2. Right to reputation.

 Case Law: State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust

It was held that when a man’s reputation is hurt, it is considered that a man is half dead.

3. Right to livelihood.

 Case Law: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation

It is also known as the Slum Dwellers Case. It was held that the right to livelihood is covered in the
right to life, and any person who is denied basic means of livelihood is said to be violative of their
right to life.

4. Sexual harassment at the workplace.

 Case Law: Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

5. Right to shelter.

 Case Law: Chameli Singh v. State of U.P

6. Right to live in an unpolluted environment.

 Case Law: M.C. Mehta v. UOI

 Case Law: Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI

7. Right to sustainable development.

8. Right against noise pollution.

9. Right to education.

 Case Law: Mohini Jem v. State of Karnataka

 Case Law: Unni Krishan v. State of A.P

10. Right to social security and protection of the family.

 Case Law: LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Center

11. Right against honor killing, i.e., freedom of choice of marriage.

 Case Law: Surjit Kumar v. State of U.P

12. Right to health and timely medical aid.

 Case Law: Consumer Education & Research Center v. UOI

 13. Duty to preserve life in medico-legal cases.

 Case Law: Parmanand Katara v. UOI

14. No right to die or commit suicide.

 Case Law: Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab

 Case Law: P. Rathinam v. UOI

15. Sentence of death in the rarest of rare cases.

 Case Law: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

It was held by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that Article 21 recognizes that the state
has the right to deprive a person of his life in accordance with a fair, just, and reasonable procedure
established by law. It further held that the death penalty for murder under Section 302 of the IPC is
not violative of the basic features of the Constitution.

Right to personal liberty, including the right to privacy.

1. Right to Privacy:
 Case Law: M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra

 Case Law: Govind v. State of M.P

In both cases, it was held that the right to privacy is not a part of Article 21.

 Case Law: K.S. Puttarswami v. UOI

Right to privacy is a part and parcel of Article 21.

Different Facets of Right to Privacy:

1. Right to privacy as disclosure of dreadful diseases.

 Case Law: Mr. X v. Hospital Z a. Telephone tapping. b. Subjecting a person to medical tests. c.
Women’s right to make a reproductive choice. d. Privileged communication. e. Disclosure of
information. f. No right to have as many children as desired.

2. Telephone tapping

3. Subjecting a person to medical tests.

4. Women’s right to make reproductive choice

5. Privileged communication

6. Disclosure of information

7. No right to have as many children as one wishes

8. Right of major to line with anybody i.e., live in relationship

 Case Law: Jyoti V. State of U.P

2. Right to go to abroad i.e., right to travel

 Case Law: Maneka Gandhi V. UOI

3. Right against illegal detention

4. Right to free legal aid

5. Right speedy trial

  Case Law: Hussain aera Khatoon V. State of Bihar.

6. Right to fair trial

7. Right to bail

8. No right to anticipatory bail

9. Right against handcuffing

10. Right against Bar fetters

 Case Law: Sunil Batra V. Delhi Administration

11. No right to escapes from custody

12. Right against solitary confinement

13. Right against in the human treatment

14. Right against custodian, violence

15. Right against public hanging

 Case Law: Attorney general of India V. Lachma Devi

16. Right against delayed execution

17. Right to damage for violation of Article 21.

The word procedure established by law is based on the English doctrine i.e., “due process for law” but however it
is different in a way that that procedure established by law must be fair, just & reasonable & not arbitrary in
nature.

 Case Law: Menaka Gandhi V. UOI

 Case Law: Gopalan V. State of madras

Article 22- Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his
choice.

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a
period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to
the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the
authority of a magistrate.

(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—

(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or

(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.

(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three
months unless—

(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a
High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient
cause for such detention:Provided that nothing in this sub-clause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond
the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or

(b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-clauses (a)
and (b) of clause (7).

(5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention,
the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the
order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

(6) Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in that clause to disclose
facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to disclose.

(7) Parliament may by law prescribe—

(a) the circumstances under which, and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period
longer than three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion of an
Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4);

(b) the maximum period for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained under any law
providing for preventive detention; and

(c) the procedure to be followed by an Advisory Board in an inquiry under sub-clause (a) of clause (4).

#Object of Article 22-

1. The main objective behind A.22 is to avoid miscarriage of justice. Also A.22 keeps a check on the power of
executives while arresting or detaining any person in custody

Case Law- State of Punjab V. Ajaib Singh

2. Safeguard against arrest or detention:

A) Right to be informed about grounds of arrest

B) Right to be consulted or defended by legal practitioner

 C) Right to produce near magistrate

D) Right to be detained before 24 hours without authority of magistrate.

3. Meaning of preventive detention:

Preventive detention means detaining a person without any trial under such circumstances that the evidence in
possession of authority is not sufficient to make legal charges or to secure the conviction of the person but the
evidence is sufficient to justify his detention.

Case Law- A.K Gopalan V. State of madras

Case Law- Francis Coraile Mullin V. UT of Delhi

Article 23: Prohibition of Trafficking in Human Beings and Forced Labor.

Bare provision- 23. Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
(1)Traffic in human beings and beggar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention
of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

(2)Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purpose, and in
imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or
any of them.

The term traffic in human being means buying & selling of men & women like goods.

 Case Law: Vishaljieet V. UOI

 Case Law: Gaurav Jain V. UOI

The parliament has enacted the suppression of immoral traffic in women & girls Act,1956. & this law was later on
was renamed as immoral traffic prevention Act, 1956.

Begar:- Word beggar has 2 elements- To compel a person to work against his will and also not providing any
remuneration for that work.

 Case Law: People’s union for democratic rights V. UOI

Article 24: Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.

Bare provision- 24. Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc.
No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine
or engaged in any other hazardous employment.
This provision is read with article 39 (e) & (f) of the DPSP.
Prohibition of employment of children in factories: No children below the age 14yrs shall be employed to
work in any factory or mine or engaged in any hazardous employment.
Article 39 (e)- that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are
not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their
age or strength.
Article 39 (f)- that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and
against moral and material abandonment.
 Case Law: M.C Mehta V. State of Tamil Nadu
  Case Law: Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. UOI

Right to Religion (Article- 25,26,27 and 28)

Article 25- Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion.
Bare provision- 25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion

(1)Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally
entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2)Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
(a)regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which maybe associated with
religious practice;(b)providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a
public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

The word religion is not defined anywhere in the constitution but supreme court has explained that
religion is matter of faith with individual or communities and it has an outward expression as well.
●Case Law: Lilly Thomas V. UOI
The supreme court held that religion is matter of faith which extend from heart of individual.
Meaning of Conscience: Freedom of conscience means inner freedom of individual to mould his relation
with god in any matter.
Meaning of Profess: Profess means to make pen declaration or to declare one’s belief.
Meaning of practice: Practice means to perform any ritual or rites of a particular religion.
Meaning of propagate: Propagate means to spread and publicise one’s religious views.
Case Laws of A.25-
●Dalip Kumar V. State of Punjab
●John Walla Metton V. UOI
●M.H Qureshi V. State of Bihar
●Javed V. State of Haryana

Article 26- Freedom to manage religious affairs

Bare Provision- Freedom to manage religious affairs
Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section
thereof shall have the right—
(a)to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b)to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c)to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d)to administer such property in accordance with law.

The word religion denomination means class of individuals grouped together under same name having a
common name or organization and designated by distinct name.
●Case Law: S.P Mittal V. UOI
It was held the word religious denomination must have following three teachers-
A) It must be collection of individual who have a system of doctrines.
B) Must have common organization
C) Must have distinctive name
●Case Law: Sanjiv Kumar V. Principle, Saint Paul College

Article 27- Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.
Bare provision- Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion
No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically
appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular
religion or religious denomination.

Article 28 - Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in

certain educational institutions.
Bare provision- Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain
educational institutions

(1)No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.

(2)Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been
established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such
institution.

(3)No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall
be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any
religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person
or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.

Explanation- According to A.28 there are three types of educational institution with respect to religious
instruction or worship:
A. Educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds-
There is absolute prohibition against imparting of religious institutions
B. Educational institutions which are either recognised by state or receiving aid from state funds-
There is no prohibition against imparting of religious instruction. However, no person attending
such educational institution shall required to take a part in any religious activity unless and until he
consents for it and if the person is minor, the consent shall be given by the guardian.
C. Educational institution administered by the state but established under endowment or trust-
There is no prohibition against imparting religious instructions.
Case laws for Article 27-
●Aruna Roy V. UOI
●D.A.V College Jalandhar V. State of Punjab