File Name: dom of speech and expression in indian constitution .zip
It laid down the right to certain freedoms with certain restrictions.
In the Constituent Assembly Debates it was made clear by Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, that no special mention of the freedom of press was necessary at all as the press and an an individual or a citizen were the same as far as their right of expression was concerned. Freedom of Press - Article 19 1 a To preserve the democratic way of life it is essential that people should have the freedom of express their feelings and to make their views known to the people at large.
The Constitution of India provides the right of freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution.
The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression , as one of its six freedoms. This act was brought about in the backdrop of a series of murders of Arya Samaj leaders who polemicized against Islam. This started in with the murder of Pandit Lekhram by a Muslim because he had written a book criticizing Islam. It was imposed by the British on the Hindus in order to shield Islam from criticism". Precedence to this law started even before this as in a case against Arya Samaj preacher Dharm Bir in , ten Muslims were sentenced for rioting, but Dharm Bir was also charged under section for "using offensive phrases and gestures … with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings" of another community; and under Section , for "wantonly provoking the riot which subsequently occurred" and "a judge was brought in who could assure conviction".
The Constitution of India was drafted by the Constituent Assembly from to However, this Constitution drew on a longer history of antecedents documents drafted either as legislation governing British India or aspirational political documents. The Constitution of India Bill , widely considered to be the first Indian articulation of a constitutional vision, contained the following provision related to freedom of speech and expression - 'Every citizen may express his thoughts by words or writings, and publish them in print without liability to censure, but they shall be answerable to abuses, which they may commit in the exercise of this right, in the cases and in the mode the Parliament shall determine.
Other constitutional antecedent documents too contained provisions on freedom of speech and expression. In most cases, the provisions contained some form of restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. The Constituent Assembly of India debated on freedom of speech and expression Article 19 1 of the Draft Constitution, on 1 December , 2 December and 17 October The draft article read:. Proviso: Nothing in sub-clause a of clause 1 of this article shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, relating to libel, slander, defamation, sedition or any other matter which offends against decency or morality or undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State.
Most members of the Constituent Assembly welcomed the inclusion of the right. However, conflict emerged around the provision in the Article that placed restrictions on the right: while some members opposed the mention of restrictions on the right, others supported it. Members who opposed the restrictions argued that 1. There is no point in having a right to freedom of speech and expression in the presence of restrictions.
Putting restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression was a British practice. In the end, the Constituent Assembly voted on the Article and included a "Right to freedom of speech and expression" in the Constitution of India, with restrictions similar to the ones mentioned in the Draft Constitution, In a landmark judgment of the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ,  the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also.
The constitution of India does not specifically mention the freedom of press. Freedom of press is implied from the Article 19 1 a of the Constitution.
Thus the press is subject to the restrictions that are provided under the Article 19 2 of the Constitution. Before Independence, there was no constitutional or statutory provision to protect the freedom of press. As observed by the Privy Council in Channing Arnold v. King Emperor :  "The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary part of the freedom of the subject and to whatever length, the subject in general may go, so also may the journalist, but apart from statute his privilege is no other and no higher.
The range of his assertions, his criticisms or his comments is as wide as, and no wider than that of any other subject".
The Preamble of the Indian Constitution ensures to all its citizens the liberty of expression. Freedom of the press has been included as part of freedom of speech and expression under the Article 19 of the UDHR.
The heart of the Article 19 says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras ,  Patanjali Shastri, Chief Justice observed: "Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible. The Supreme Court observed in Union of India v. Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions".
In Indian Express v. Union of India ,  it has been held that the press plays a very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom. Freedom of press has three essential elements. They are:.
In India, the press has not been able to practise its freedom to express the popular views. In Sakal Papers Ltd. Union of India ,  the Daily Newspapers Price and Page Order, , which fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper could publish at a price was held to be violative of freedom of press and not a reasonable restriction under the Article 19 2. Similarly, in Bennett Coleman and Co. Union of India ,  the validity of the Newsprint Control Order, which fixed the maximum number of pages, was struck down by the Supreme Court of India holding it to be violative of provision of Article 19 1 a and not to be reasonable restriction under Article 19 2.
The Court struck down the rebuttal of the Government that it would help small newspapers to grow [ how? State of Madras , entry and circulation of the English journal "Cross Road", printed and published in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras. The same was held to be violative of the freedom of speech and expression, as "without liberty of circulation, publication would be of little value".
In Prabha Dutt v. Union of India , the Supreme Court directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to allow representatives of a few newspapers to interview Ranga and Billa, the death sentence convicts, as they wanted to be interviewed. There are instances when the freedom of press has been suppressed by the legislature.
The authority of the government, in such circumstances, has been under the scanner of judiciary. In the case of Brij Bhushan v. The court struck down the Section 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, , which directed the editor and publisher of a newspaper "to submit for scrutiny, in duplicate, before the publication, till the further orders , all communal matters all the matters and news and views about Pakistan, including photographs, and cartoons", on the ground that it was a restriction on the liberty of the press.
Similarly, prohibiting newspaper from publishing its own views or views of correspondents about a topic has been held to be a serious encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression. Under Indian law, the freedom of speech and of the press do not confer an absolute right to express one's thoughts freely. Clause 2 of Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on free speech under following heads:. Reasonable restrictions on these grounds can be imposed only by a duly enacted law and not by executive action.
Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of speech and expression, in the interest of the security of the State. All the utterances intended to endanger the security of the State by crimes of violence intended to overthrow the government, waging of war and rebellion against the government, external aggression or war, etc.
This ground was added by the Constitution First Amendment Act of The State can impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, if it tends to jeopardise the friendly relations of India with other State. The expression 'public order' connotes the sense of public peace, safety and tranquillity. In Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal , the Supreme Court explained the differences between three concepts: law and order, public order, security of State.
Anything that disturbs public peace or public tranquillity disturbs public order. It is also necessary that there must be a reasonable nexus between the restriction imposed and the achievement of public order. In Superintendent, Central Prison v. Special Powers Act, , which punished a person if he incited a single person not to pay or defer the payment of Government dues, as there was no reasonable nexus between the speech and public order.
Similarly, the court upheld the validity of the provision empowering a Magistrate to issue directions to protect the public order or tranquillity. The word 'obscenity' is identical with the word 'indecency' of the Indian Constitution. In an English case of R. Hicklin ,  the test was laid down according to which it is seen 'whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene tend to deprave and corrupt the minds which are open to such immoral influences'. This test was upheld by the Supreme Court in Ranjit D.
Udeshi v. In this case the Court upheld the conviction of a book seller who was prosecuted under Section , I. The standard of morality varies from time to time and from place to place. The constitutional right to freedom of speech would not allow a person to contempt the courts. The term contempt of court refers to civil contempt or criminal contempt under the Act. But judges do not have any general immunity from criticism of their judicial conduct, provided that it is made in good faith and is genuine criticism, and not any attempt to impair the administration of justice.
Angelic judges would be undisturbed by extraneous influences and angelic journalists would not seek to influence them. The power to punish for contempt, as a means of safeguarding judges in deciding on behalf of the community as impartially as is given to the lot of men to decide, is not a privilege accorded to judges.
The power to punish for contempt of court is a safeguard not for judges as persons but for the function which they exercise". Namboodripad v. Namboodripad guilty of contempt of court. Parashar v. But the Court dismissed the petition for want of proof.
The clause 2 of Article 19 prevents any person from making any statement that injures the reputation of another. With the same view, defamation has been criminalised in India by inserting it into Section of the I. Where defamation is concerned, in case of a criminal defamation suit as laid down in Sections and Section of the Indian Penal Code, the issue - in question - being the truth isn't considered a defence. Even if a person has spoken the truth, he can be prosecuted for defamation.
Under the first exception to Section , truth will only be a defence if the statement was made 'for the public good. This ground was also added by the Constitution First Amendment Act, The Constitution also prohibits a person from making any statement that incites people to commit offense. This ground was also added subsequently by the Constitution Sixteenth Amendment Act, This is aimed to prohibit anyone from making statements that challenge the integrity and sovereignty of India.
The Indian Constitution , while not mentioning the word "press", provides for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" Article 19 1 a. However this right is subject to restrictions under sub clause, whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of " sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt, court, defamation , or incitement to an offense".
The Constitution of India provides the right of freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression , as one of its six freedoms. This act was brought about in the backdrop of a series of murders of Arya Samaj leaders who polemicized against Islam. This started in with the murder of Pandit Lekhram by a Muslim because he had written a book criticizing Islam. It was imposed by the British on the Hindus in order to shield Islam from criticism".
It is time for the establishment to realise that the people of this country mean well and as in any democracy, there are bound to be different points of view. Despite the growing number of cases against journalists, the draft official report on improving India's press freedom ranking claims, "The work culture in the Government of India involves transparency as the norm". The gradual erosion of one of our most precious fundamental rights — the inalienable right to freedom of speech and expression — is leading to the gradual destruction of our human right to dissent and protest. This lethal cocktail is adversely impacting the liberty of all those who dare to speak up. Article 21 of our constitution, the right to life and personal liberty, is under a silent threat and we all know the consequence of losing our liberty.
The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression. This right is available only to a citizen of India and not to foreign nationals. This right is, however, not absolute and it allows Government to frame laws to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality and contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence. This restriction on the freedom of speech of any citizen may be imposed as much by an action of the State as by its inaction. Thus, failure on the part of the State to guarantee to all its citizens the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression would also constitute a violation of Article 19 1 a. Freedom of Press- Democracy can thrive through vigilant eye of Legislature but also care and guidance of public opinion and press par excellence. Romesh Thappar v.
The internet shutdown was imposed in the union territory on August 5, , after the abrogation of Article of the Constitution. With regard to the Shutdown Rules, the court held that indefinite suspension of the internet was not permissible and could be used for a temporary duration only. The court also called for a periodic review of orders suspending internet strictly in accordance with the Shutdown Rules. The court was also not convinced by the government contention that the internet shutdown in the union territory was critical for safeguarding national interests and internal security. The apex court also considered the issue whether the freedom of the press of Anuradha Bhasin, Kashmir Times Editor, was violated due to restrictions.
Других слов для него у нее не. Стратмор оторвался от перил и переложил пистолет в правую руку. Не произнеся ни слова, он шагнул в темноту, Сьюзан изо всех сил держалась за его плечо.
Послание ничем не отличалось от многих других, которые он получал: правительственное учреждение просит его поработать переводчиком в течение нескольких часов сегодня утром. Странным показалось только одно: об этой организации Беккер никогда прежде не слышал. Беккер позвонил одному из своих коллег: - Тебе что-нибудь известно об Агентстве национальной безопасности.
Время от времени, когда надо было продлить членство в теннисном клубе или перетянуть старую фирменную ракетку, он подрабатывал переводами для правительственных учреждений в Вашингтоне и его окрестностях. В связи с одной из таких работ он и познакомился со Сьюзан. В то прохладное осеннее утро у него был перерыв в занятиях, и после ежедневной утренней пробежки он вернулся в свою трехкомнатную университетскую квартиру. Войдя, Дэвид увидел мигающую лампочку автоответчика. Слушая сообщение, он выпил почти целый пакет апельсинового сока. Послание ничем не отличалось от многих других, которые он получал: правительственное учреждение просит его поработать переводчиком в течение нескольких часов сегодня утром. Странным показалось только одно: об этой организации Беккер никогда прежде не слышал.
Сегодня годовщина. Беккер кивнул, плохо соображая, какая тут связь. - Такая прическа была у Табу в день гибели.
The citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by article 19 1 a has been held by some courts to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence.Reply
This chapter examines the place of the right to freedom of speech and expression within Indian constitutionalism.Reply