Article 19 - Constitution of India - Notes

DECEMBER 16, 2017 BY ADMIN
Article 19 – Constitution of India – Notes

Spread the love
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
justi ed 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, xing number of pages and size which a newspaper could publish at a
price.
The court held that restriction not justi ed 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 justi ed 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, xation 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) certi cate for its screening.
Petitioner dissatis ed 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
classi cation 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 justi ed because it is done in the interest of the society
thus restriction is ne 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 af liation 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 suf cient 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
con rms 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 suf cient 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.
You can grab notes on other provisions of the Constitution and other law subjects from here.
Spread the love
CO N S T I T U T I O N , L AW S C H O O L N O T ES

Article 19 - Constitution of India - Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 19 - Constitution of India - Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article 19 - Constitution of India - Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DECEMBER 16, 2017 BY ADMIN

Article 19 – Constitution of India – Notes

Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951

o The moral problem posed by irresponsible journalism.

Brij Bhusan v State of Delhi (1950)

Romesh Thapar v Madras (1950)

Sakal Papers v Union of India (1962)

Express Newspaper v. Union of India

Secretary Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Tata Press Ltd v MTNL (1995) (Right to

KA Abbas v Union of India

Union of India v. Association for Democratic

Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986) – Right to

Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar(1962)

Freedom to Form Association or Union

Jamaat-E-Islami Hind v. Union of India

Spread the love

You might also like