Article 19 of the Constitution of India
Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom
Constitutional Provision
Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees six fundamental freedoms to the citizens of India. These freedoms are essential for the proper functioning of a democratic society. However, none of these freedoms are absolute; each is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State in the interest of society and the nation.
Article 19(1): Guaranteed Freedoms
Article 19(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right:
(a) Freedom of Speech and Expression
This clause guarantees every citizen the right to freely express their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and ideas through speech, writing, printing, visual representation, or any other medium.
The scope of this freedom is wide and includes:
Freedom of the press
Right to receive information
Right to silence
Constitutional Development
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 introduced significant changes to Article 19(1)(a) in response to early judicial decisions that struck down press censorship laws.
In Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950) and Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court invalidated State actions restricting press freedom, holding that such restrictions were unconstitutional. These judgments prompted Parliament to amend Article 19 to allow reasonable restrictions on speech in the interest of public order and national security.
Article 19(2): Reasonable Restrictions on Speech
Under Article 19(2), the State may impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in the interests of:
Sovereignty and integrity of India
Security of the State
Friendly relations with foreign States
Public order
Decency or morality
Contempt of court
Defamation
Incitement to an offence
The judiciary plays a crucial role in determining whether a restriction is reasonable, as reasonableness is primarily a judicial question.
Judicial Interpretation of Freedom of Speech
In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Patanjali Shastri, C.J. famously observed:
“Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations.”
In Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1972), the Supreme Court held that freedom of the press includes both circulation and content, recognizing its qualitative and quantitative dimensions.
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was struck down as unconstitutional for being vague and having a chilling effect on free speech.
In State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975), the Court held that the right to know about public acts of public officials flows directly from freedom of speech.
In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court recognized the right to silence, holding that no individual can be compelled to sing the National Anthem against their genuine religious beliefs.
(b) Freedom to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms
Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms for public meetings, demonstrations, and protests.
Restrictions
Under Article 19(3), reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the interests of:
Public order
Sovereignty and integrity of India
In Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Bombay (1972), the Supreme Court held that while the State may regulate assemblies, it cannot impose a total prohibition on public meetings.
(c) Freedom to Form Associations or Unions
Article 19(1)(c) grants citizens the right to form associations, unions, political parties, and cooperative societies.
Restrictions
Article 19(4) permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of:
Public order
Morality
Sovereignty and integrity of India
In Damyanti v. Union of India (1971), the Supreme Court held that the right to form an association includes the right to continue the association with its chosen members.
The Constitution (Ninety-seventh Amendment) Act, 2011 added “co-operative societies” to Article 19(1)(c). However, parts of this amendment were later struck down by the Supreme Court in 2021 due to lack of State ratification.
(d) Freedom of Movement
Article 19(1)(d) ensures the right of citizens to move freely throughout the territory of India.
In Chambaram Soy v. Union of India (2007), the Supreme Court held that road blockages violating free movement can amount to infringement of Article 19(1)(d), and the State may be liable for compensation due to administrative inaction.
(e) Freedom to Reside and Settle
Article 19(1)(e) grants citizens the right to reside and settle in any part of India.
In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (1995), the Court held that the right to residence includes the right to shelter.
Restrictions may be imposed in the interest of:
General public
Protection of Scheduled Tribes
(g) Freedom to Practice Profession, Trade, or Business
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
Article 19(6): Restrictions
The State may impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public, including:
Professional or technical qualifications
State monopoly over trade or business
In Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. (1951), the Supreme Court struck down a law banning bidi manufacturing during agricultural seasons as unreasonable.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates a woman’s right to profession under Article 19(1)(g), leading to binding guidelines.
Repealed Clause – Right to Property
Article 19(1)(f) (Right to Property) was repealed by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, and is now a constitutional legal right under Article 300A.
Conclusion
Article 19 forms the core of individual liberty under the Indian Constitution. While it guarantees essential freedoms necessary for democracy, it also recognizes the need for reasonable restrictions in the larger public interest. The judiciary has played a vital role in maintaining this balance, ensuring that neither individual liberty nor State authority dominates unreasonably.
Comments
Post a Comment