·
The freedom given under Article 19 could only be
restricted on the grounds mentioned in the article itself.
Grounds of Restriction
·
Security
of State and Public order - Public
order means public peace, safety and tranquility.
·
Sovereignty
and integrity of India – This is the restriction which legitimizes the law
of sedition. Was added by 16th
Amendment Act based on the recommendations made by the Committee on National
Integration and Regionalism. Targets individuals or organizations promoting
secessionist tendencies or ideas of disintegration.
·
Friendly
relations with foreign states
·
Incitement
to an offence
·
Contempt
of Courts
·
Decency
or morality
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951
·
Added ‘public order’, ‘friendly relations with
foreign states’ and ‘incitement to an offence’ as grounds for restriction.
·
Nehru introduced these for the following
reasons:-
o
The moral problem posed by irresponsible
journalism.
o
Telangana problem
Freedom of Press
Brij Bhusan v State of Delhi (1950)
·
Direction was issued under Section 7(1)(c) of
the East Punjab Public Safety Act to editor and publishers to submit for
scrutiny in duplicate all communal matters, news and views about Pakistan.
·
This was struck down as violation of Article 19(1)(a)
as imposing unreasonable restriction not justified under 19(2).
·
Provided freedom from pre-censorship on
publication
Romesh Thapar v Madras
(1950)
·
Petitioner
contended that banning of his journal ‘Crossroads’ in Madras is violative of the fundamental
right granted under Article 19(1)(a).
·
Court
held that order is outside the purview of Article 19(2) and cannot be
sustained.
·
Provided
the right to liberty of circulation.
Sakal Papers v Union of
India (1962)
·
Order
was passed, fixing number of pages and size which a newspaper could publish at
a price.
·
The
court held that restriction not justified by the grounds under 19(2).
·
The
effect was to reduce circulation or volume of newspaper.
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of
India
·
The import of news print policy provided several
restrictions such as that that there will be rigid limit of 10 pages for a
newspaper, there will bar on starting new newspapers or magazines by common
ownership unit etc.
·
The government justified the restriction as regulation on the supply of
newsprint quota to papers.
·
Court gave Effects
Test - Object not important. If the effect of excessive and prohibitive. Thus, the object of the newspaper
restrictions of controlling the availability of newsprint or foreign exchange cannot
be sustained as long as it effects circulation of newspapers.
·
Court held that liberty of press includes not
only in volume of circulation but also in the volume of news and views. It
includes right to free propagation and free circulation without any previous
restraint.
Express Newspaper v. Union of India
·
The validity of Working Journalists Act was challenged which
was enacted to regulate conditions of services (such as number of working hours, number of leaves,
fixation of wages, etc) of
persons employed in newspaper industry .
·
Act was
challenged on the ground that it will adversely affect the economic conditions
of newspaper and consequentially will affect their circulation and thus was
violation of Article 19(1)(a).
·
The
court held that the press was not immune from laws of general application or
ordinary forms of taxation, or law of industrial relation. Therefore, the court
upheld the constitutionality of the act.
Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v Cricket Association of
West Bengal (1995) AIR WAVES CASE
·
Petitioner wanted to telecast cricket matches organized by it through
frequency not owned or controlled by government of India but owned by a foreign
satellite agency.
·
Petitioner sought permission from Doordarshan to uplink the signals created by its
own camera and the earth station. Doordarshan rejected the permission on
the ground that it enjoys monopoly by virtue of Telegraph Act 1885 and that frequencies available in India
are in limited number.
·
Board argued that game of cricket provided
entertainment to public and was a form of speech and expression under 19 (1)
(a) which included a right to telecast the matches and broadcast it to the
public.
·
The
Court held that Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to acquire
information and to disseminate the same. The right to communicate therefore
means right to communicate through any media that is available whether print or
electronic or audio-visual such as advertisements, articles, speech etc. it
includes freedom to communicate and circulate one’s views.
·
The right to freedom of speech and expression
includes right to educate, right to inform, and to entertain and also right to be educated,
informed and entertained. The former is the right of the telecaster and the
latter the right of the viewers.
·
The right to impart and receive information is a
species of the right to freedom of speech and expression. A citizen has a right
to use the best means of imparting and receiving information.
Tata Press Ltd v MTNL
(1995) (Right to Commercial Speech)
·
Petitioner
wanted to publish a telephone directory. Respondent claimed exclusive right to
publish telephone directory under Telegraphs Act 1885.
·
The
Court held that commercial advertisement is a form of speech and expression as
they disseminate information through advertisement.
·
Since
the restriction was not part of Article 19(2) it cannot be sustained.
KA
Abbas v Union of India
·
Petitioner’s
movie ‘A Tale of Four cities’ was denied U (Universal) certificate for its
screening. Petitioner dissatisfied from the rating challenged the validity of Cinematograph
Act itself on the ground of violation of Article 19(1).
·
The Central government will
grant authority to competent persons who can impose restriction. And the board
appointed should draw a line and put reasonable restrictions. And also
classification according to age groups and their suitability for unrestricted
exhibition is considered as valid in the interests of public morality and thus
won’t offend freedom of speech and expression.
·
The Court held that
pre-censorship is justified because it is done in the interest of the society
thus restriction is fine if it is reasonable but if it isn't and goes outside
the purview of Article 19(2) then the abuse of power can be questioned.
Union of India v.
Association for Democratic Reforms (Right to Know)
·
Every
voter has a right to know the antecedents of the candidates at election. Right
to know is included in 19(1)(a).
Bijoe Emmanuel v State of
Kerala (1986) – Right to remain silent
·
Three
students belonging to Jehovah Witness refused to sing the anthem on basis of
their religious affiliation but stood respectfully while the national anthem
was being sung.
·
Court held that they had not insulted the
national anthem and the government circular cannot violate article 19(1)(a), which
includes in itself the right to remain silent.
Right to
Demonstration
Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar(1962)
·
Court held that demonstration being visible
representation of ideas would be protected as a form of speech provided they
are not violent and disorderly.
OK Ghosh v Ex Joseph (1963)
·
Article 19(1) (a) included a right to demonstration provided
it is not violent or disorderly.
Freedom to Form Association or Union
Jamaat-E-Islami Hind v. Union of India
·
The Central government imposed a
ban on Jamaat e Islam under the unlawful activities prevention act.
·
The court held that there should
be a sufficient cause for declaring the association unlawful. The procedure to
be followed is that when the central government declares any association
unconstitutional it should approach the tribunal and when the tribunal looks
into it and confirms then it becomes unconstitutional.
·
Also if the Central government thinks
it is not credible to give or disclose information to the public as it will
disturb the public peace then it shouldn't but the tribunal can look into the
information and see if it is correct and then can declare it unconstitutional.
·
Thus a test of factual existence
should be followed and this test should determine the meaning and content of
the adjudication by the tribunal of the existence of sufficient cause for
declaring the association to be unlawful.
Test
of Reasonability
·
O. K.
Ghosh v. Ex. Joseph - The
restriction imposed should be reasonable and be rationally proximate and in
nexus with public interest.
·
Virendra v. State of Punjab - Absence of provision for review
makes the provisions unreasonable.
·
Municipal Corporation of Thecity v. Jan
Mohd. Usmanbhai - The
reasonableness should be determined in an objective manner and from the angle
of the general public’s interest and not from the viewpoint of the person upon
whom the restriction are imposed.
.jpg)
Posts
0 comments :
Post a Comment