Art 19 (1) guarantees six freedoms

a. Freedom of speech and expression

b. Freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms
c. Freedom to form association or unions (co-operative
societies)
d. Freedom to move freely throughout territory of India;
e. Freedom to reside and settle in any part of territory of India;
f. Freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property (omitted by
44th Constitutional Amendment Act 1978)
g. Freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business.
 Art 19 (1) (a) Freedom of speech and expression (FSE)
 it is available only to citizens of India
 FSE is bulwark of democracy
 Art 19 (1) (a) do not include freedom of press but it
is read out in it by various judgments like Romesh
Thappar v. St of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124, Sakal
Papers v. Union of India AIR 1962 etc…
 First Amendment to US constitution specifically
provides for freedom of the press
 Press is regarded as 4th pillar of democracy
(doubtful in India)
Right to Information was also held to be part of Art 19
(1) (a)
St of UP v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 865
SC held that Art 19 (1) (a) also includes right to know,
right to receive information on matters relating to
public concerns.
To confine criminal tendencies in election right to
information plays vital role
UoI v. Association for democratic reforms AIR 2002 SC
2112
Voters right to know bio-data of the candidate
contesting election is FR
 Advertisements is part and parcel of Art 19 (1) (a), but is there any
limit to it
Hamdard Dawakhana v. UoI AIR 1960 SC554
Parliamentary legislation prohibited advertisement of drugs in
certain cases. It was challenged on the ground of violation of
Art 19 (1) (a).
SC held that advertisement is part of Art 19 (1) (a) but the object of
the present legislation is not only to prohibit indecent and
immoral advertisements but to prevent self medication also.
Picketing, demonstration and strike and FSE
O. K. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph AIR 1963 SC 812
A disciplinary rule prohibited government servants from
participating in any demonstration was held to be violative of Art
19 (1) (a).
 Bandh:
Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar AIR
1998 SC 184
Bandh (closure) is different from strike and it
violates many freedoms of others like freedom
to move freely, freedom to carry trade
etc…hence it is unconstitutional.
Section 66-A of IT Act 2000 was held to be
unconstitutional in the case of Shreya Singhal
v. UoI (2015) SCC 248
 Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955
Section 124A of IPC was declared constitutionally valid,
but court cautioned that any fair criticism of the
Government cannot attract Sec 124 A. Such criticism
must be associated with tendencies to create disorder.
E. M. S. Namboodiripad v. T. N. Nambiar AIR 1970 SC 2481
The criticism of judiciary as it is an “instrument of
oppression and the judges as guided and dominated
by class hatred, instinctively favouring the rich against
the poor” was held to be contempt of the Court,
because it lower downs the status of law and law
courts in the eyes of the people.
 Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 881
Section 294 of IPC was held to be constitutionally valid
because law against obscenity seeks no more than to
promote public decency and morality.
R. v. Hicklin L. R. 3 QB 360
Test of obscenity is, the matter charged as obscene is to
deprive and corrupt those, whose minds are open to such
immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of
this sort is likely to fall.
Dr. Ramesh Prabhu v. Prabhakar Kunte AIR 1996 SC 1113
SC observed that, decency and morality shall not be confined
to sexual morality alone.
 Reasonable Restrictions under Art 19 (2)
1. Sovereignty and integrity of India
2. Security of State
3. Friendly relations with foreign states
4. Public order
5. Decency and Morality
6. Contempt of court
7. Defamation
8. Incitement to an offence
The burden to prove that the restrictions are reasonable
is on the state, because it the state who impose it.
 Objectives of these restrictions
1. It indicates that these freedoms are not absolute.
2. It also put limitations on the power of the
State, in the sense that the State cannot put restrictions beyond
these grounds.
3. And each restriction must be reasonable.
To adjudge reasonability of the restrictions the court may rely on
following criteria;
a. Duration and extent of the restriction
b. The circumstances under which these restrictions are imposed
c. The purpose of the restrictions
d. Dis-proportionality of the restrictions
e. Prevailing conditions at the time of imposing these restrictions
 Effect v. subject-matter test.
To adjudge violation of any of the freedom, what shall
be looked into the subject or the effect of law which
consequentially affects on freedom(s)
Bennet Colman v. U o I AIR 1973 SC 106
The policy of news-print was distribution of imported
news-print and the Govt never had intention to
impose restriction on 19 (1) (a). But the SC rejected
this argument and held, the effect of the policy of
Govt is violating freedom of the press directly.
LIC of India v. Prof. Manubahi Shah AIR 1993
SC 171
Consumer Education and Research Centre
publsihed data as to how LIC is following
discriminatory practices
Right to publish dissenting opinion in the
official magazine of LIC held to be FR
 Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955
Supreme Court upheld validity of Sec 124A of
IPC which penalizes words spoken or
written attempting to bring hatred or
contempt or dissatisfaction against the Govt.
 Discipline in civil services and FES
What is the validity of restrictions imposed to ensure discipline in civil
services? This is not the ground to impose restriction under Art 19 (2)
M. H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State small industries Development
Corporation AIR 1998 SC 1064.
Appellant was GM of respondent Corporation. He gave a statement to
press attacking the head of the corporation. He wrote a letter to
Governor and made allegations against several officials of this
Corporation.
He was dismissed from the service on the ground that his conduct is
detrimental to internal discipline of the Corporation.
He challenged the rules on the basis of which the Govt dismissed him, as
violation of his FSE and contended that there is no mention of
discipline as ground of restriction under Art 19 (2).
The SC rejected his contention and upheld his dismissal and the validity
of the rules ensuring discipline in civil service.
 Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Rajasthan AIR
2002 SC 1124
Supreme Court refused to apply Devendrappa
ruling against an elected member of Muncipal
Council. He criticised the house tax
assessment by the Council.
Reasoning: Here is a case of elected member of
Corporation, who is supposed to stand for
public and just not for Corporation.
It is fair criticism of the tax policy of the
Corporation.
 Noise pollution and FSE
Church of God v. K. K. R. M. C. Welfare
Asso…AIR 2000 SC 2773
What is the validity of limitation on use of
loudspeakers? Art 25 and 26 on one hand and
Art 19 (2) on the other?
SC observed that there is no question at all to use
loudspeaker for exercising freedom of religion,
because no religion asks it’s followers to use it,
and therefore limitations on use of loudspeaker
is valid under Art 19 (2)
 Right of Assembly Art 19 (1) (b) & (3)
Clause 3 provides for reasonable restrictions on
the ground of 1. Public Order, 2. Sovereignty
&Integrity
Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner AIR 1973 SC
87
A rule banning holding of public meetings on the
public streets was held to be violative of Art 19
(1) (b)
SC held that public in India has right to assemble
peaceably on public streets.
 Freedom to form Association Art 19 (1) (c), (4)
Clause 4 provides for reasonable restrictions on the ground of 1.
Public Order, 2. Morality 3. Sovereignty & Integrity
Damyanti Naranga v. UoI (1971)1 SCC 678
Hindi Sahitya Samelan was a registered society under societies
Registration Act.
Because of some differences amongst the members there started
litigations.
Parliament intervened by enacting a law which created a statutory
body, with all the existing members but new members were also
introduced.
Introduction of new members was challenged as violation of Art 19
(1) (c).
Supreme Court upheld this contention.
 Prevention of Un-lawful Activities Act 1967
Jammat-e-Islami Hind v. U o I 1995
This Act authorises the Central Govt to declare by notification in
the official gazette an association as unlawful as per grounds
mentioned under Sec 2 (f).
After demolition of Babri mosque the GoI issued notification on
10th Dec 1992 and banned VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal, Islamik Sevak
Snagh, and Jammat-e-Islami Hind. The tribunal appointed
under this Act consisting High Court Judge upheld ban against
only VHP and Jammat-e-Islami Hind.
It was challenged before the SC. The SC quashed ban on Jammat-e-
Islami Hind on the ground that there was no objective
assessment of Jammat-e-Islami Hind
 Freedom of movement and residence Art 19
(1) (d) & (e) and (5)
Ajay Canu v. U o I AIR 1988 SC 2017
Wearing helmet is not violation of this right
rather it facilitate safe movement.
K. Veeresh Babu v. U o I AIR 1963 SC 1295
Owing to religious practices exemption to
Sikhs from wearing helmet is not un-
reasonable classification