Reasonable Restrictions:

Freedom Of Speech guaranteed by the Indian constitution is subject to certain rules

and regulations which are called as reasonable restrictions. There are mentioned in the
second chapter. These restrictions should be reasonable, which is the prime element
and thats the reason why they have been named as reasonable restrictions.
First reasonable restriction was amended in the year 1951 under 19(2). This
reasonable restriction took its birth from British Indian Governments India Press
(Emergency) Act 1931. This British Indias act asked the Press to submit a security
deposit with subject to the forfeiting of the amount if the Press crosses certain
limitations like

Promoting hatred towards government

Inciting and promoting any public servant to act irresponsible towards his duties
Promoting hatred between communities
Defaming the government

Now, the prevailing reasonable restrictions of 19(2) carries the same rule and in
addition added a few more restrictions like not to promote anything that would harm
the sovereignty and integrity of India besides it gave exclusive power to the court and
no one has the right to criticise or write in their newspapers commenting the
judgement given by a Judge of any Court. The detailed explaination of these
reasonable restrictions is as follows:

1) Security of State: Under Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on

fredom of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. The term
"security of state" refers only to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g.
rebellion, waging war against the State, insurrection and not ordinary breaches of
public order and public safety, e.g. unlawful assembly, riot, affray. Thus speeches or
expression on the part of an individual, which incite to or encourage the commission
of violent crimes, such as, murder are matters, which would undermine the security of
State.
2) Friendly relations with foreign states: This ground was added by the constitution
(First Amendment) Act, 1951. The object behind the provision is to prohibit

unrestrained malicious propaganda against a foreign friendly state, which may

jeopardise the maintainance of good relations between India, and that state. No similar
provision is present in any other Constitution of the world. In India, the Foreign
Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides punishment for libel by Indian citizens against
foreign dignitaries. Interest of friendly relations with foreign States, would not justify
the suppression of fair criticism of foreign policy of the Government.
It is to be noted that member of the commonwealth including Pakistan is not a
"foreign state" for the purposes of this Constitution. The result is that freedom of
speech and expression cannot be restricted on the ground that the matter is adverse to
Pakistan.
3) Public Order: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act.
'Public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of
tranquility which prevails among the members of political society as a result of
internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established." In
Kishori Mohan v/s State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court explained the differences
between three terms Law and order, public order and security of the state. Whatever
which tends to disturbs public peace will in turn disturb public order.1
Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 'Public
order' is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility. The test for
determining whether an act affects law and order or public order is to see whether the
act leads to the disturbances of the current of life of the community so as to amount to
a disturbance of the public order or whether it affects merely an individual being the
tranquility of the society undisturbed.
Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Thus
communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object of accusing unrest
among workmen are offences against public order. Public order thus implies absence
of violence and an orderly state of affairs in which citizens can peacefully pursue their
normal avocation of life. Public order also includes public safety. Thus creating
internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and public safety. But mere
criticism of government does not necessarily disturb public order. In its external
1 Om Prakash v/s Emperor, AIR 1948.

aspect 'public safety' means protection of the country from foreign aggression. Under
public order the State would be entitled to prevent propaganda for a state of war with
India.
The words 'in the interest of public order' includes not only such utterances as are
directly intended to lead to disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to
disorder. Thus a law punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt
the religious feelings of any class of persons is valid because it imposes a restriction
on the right of free speech in the interest of public order since such speech or writing
has the tendency to create public disorder even if in some case those activities may
not actually lead to a breach of peace. But there must be reasonable and proper nexus
or relationship between the restrictions and the achievements of public order.
4) Decency or morality: The words 'morality or decency' are words of wide meaning.
Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the
freedom of speech and expression in the interest of decency or morality and issues of
obscenity in the context of media. These sections prohibit the sale or distribution or
exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is laid down till
now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from time to
time and from place to place.
5) Contempt of Court: Restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be
imposed if it exceeds the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court.
According to the Section 2 'Contempt of court' may be either 'civil contempt' or
'criminal contempt.'
6) Defamation: A statement, which injures a man's reputation, amounts to
defamation. For example If A and B are two parties and due to some problesm or
hatred between the both, if B tells ill about A to C then A is said to be defamed. It
means that if someone says ill about first part to the third party it amounts to
defamation. Every year many cases are filed under Defamatin mentioned in 1PC 499
A. This defamation is of two types

Libel

Slander

Libel means defaming the person through written words and slander means defaming
the person orally which means abusing the person.
Defamation consists in exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law
in relating to defamation is still uncodified in India and subject to certain exceptions.
7) Incitement to an offence: This ground was also added by the constitution (First
Amendment) Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a
right to incite people to commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or
omission made punishable by law for the time being in force.
8) Sedition: Sediton means defamaning the state through words, or writing which are
calculated to disturb the tranquility and peace of the State and lead ignorant person to
damage the government2. Even poems which advocates overthrowing the government
will come under sedition and those stories or articles or poems will be termed as
seditious. It should be noted that the sedition is not mentioned in clause (2) of Art. 19
as one of the grounds on which restrictions on freedom of speech and expression may
be imposed.

2 R.V Sallivan (1868) 11 cox cases 55

Reasonable Restrictions under Article

19(2)
The freedom of speech and expression does not confer an absolute right to speak and
publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose or an unrestricted or
unbridled licence that gives immunity for every possible use of language and does not
prevent punishments for those who abuse this freedom.3 Clause (2) of Article 19
specifies the grounds on which the freedom of speech and expression may be
restricted. It enables the legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to
free speech in the interests of or in relation to the following:
1) Sovereignty and integrity of India.
2) Security of the 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.
Reasonable restrictions under these heads can be imposed only by a duly enacted law
and not by an executive action.4 Now we shall consider these heads separately in the
above given order
1. Sovereignty and Integrity of India This ground has been by the
Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. The present amendment is
made to guard against the freedom of speech and expression being used to
assail the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Union. Thus, it will be
legitimate for the Parliament under this clause to restrict the right of free
speech if it preaches secession of any part of the territory of India from the
Union. However, what has to be kept in mind is that teh restriction is with
respect to the territorial integrity of the Union of India and not with respect to
the territorial integrity of the constituent states.5
2. Security of the state The security of the state may well be endangered by
the crimes of violence intended to overthrow the government, waging of war
and rebellion against the government, external aggression or war, etc. Serious
or aggravated forms of public disorder are within the expression security of
state. Every public disorder cannot be regarded as threatening the security of
3 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
4 Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133; Bijoe Emmanuel
v. State of Kerela, (1986)3 SCC 615
5

(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

Article 3 of the Constitution : Formation of new states and alteration of areas,

boundaries or names of existing states Parliament may by law Form a new state by
separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more states or parts of states or by
uniting any territory to any part of any state;
Increase the area of any state;
Diminish the area of any state;
Alter the boundaries of any state;
Alter the name of any state.

the state. In Romesh Thapar case6 the Supreme Court pointed out that the
expression does not refer to ordinary breaches of public order which do not
involve any danger to the state itself.
Incitement to commit violent crimes like murder would endanger the security
of the state. Thus, in State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi7, the law which made
the signs, words or visual representations which caused the incitement of
violence fall squarely within Article 19(2). After the amendment of the
Constitution in 1951 public order was added as a ground for restrictive laws.
3. Friendly relations with foreign states This ground was added by the
Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951. The State can impose reasonable
restrictions on the freedom of speech in the interest of friendly relations with
foreign states. The justification is obvious: unrestrained malicious propaganda
against a friendly foreign state may jeopardise the maintenance of good
relations between India and that state.
4. Public Order The preservation of public order is one of the grounds for
imposing restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. This ground
did not occur in the Constitution as framed in 1950 but was added later by the
First (Amendment) Act, 1951. The expression public order is synonymous
with public peace, safety and tranquillity.8 It signifies the absence of disorder
involving breaches of local significance in contradistinction to national
upheavals such as revolution, civil strife or war, affecting the security of the
state.
It may be noticed that clause (2) uses the words in the interests of public
order and not for the maintenance of public order. A law may not be
designed to directly maintain law and order yet it may be enacted in the
interests of public order. Also, not only such utterances as are directly
intended to incite disorder, but also those that have the tendency to lead to
disorder fall within the expression.9 Thus, a law punishing utterances made
with deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class is valid,
because it imposes a restriction on the right to free speech in the interest of
public order, since such speech or writing has the tendency to create public
disorder even if in some cases such activities may not lead to the breach of
peace.10 In the case of Virendra v. State of Punjab11 certain safeguards which
compelled the court to hold restrictions as substantively and procedurally
reasonable were:

6 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.

7 AIR 1952 SC 329.
8 Supdt., Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633.
9 Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620; Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR
1957 SC 896.
10 Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620.
11 AIR 1957 SC 896.

a) The positive requirement of the existence of satisfaction of the authority as

to the necessity for the making of the order for specific purposes
mentioned in the Act.
b) The discretion was given in the first instance to the State Government to
determine the necessity of passing the order.
c) The order could remain in force only for two months from its making
thereof.
d) The aggrieved party was given the right to make representation to the State
government which could on consideration thereof rescind, modify or
confirm the order.
5. Decency and morality Decency and morality is another ground on which
freedom of speech and expression may be reasonably restricted. Decency is
same as lack of obscenity. Obscenity becomes a subject of constitutional
interest since it illustrates well the clash between the right of individuals to
freely express their opinion and the duty of the state to safeguard their morals.
It is obvious that the right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be used
to deprave and corrupt the community.
In Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra12the Supreme Court for the first time
was called upon to lay down the test to determine obscenity. The facts were
that the appellants, a Bombay bookseller, was prosecuted under Section 292of
the Indian Penal Code for selling and for keeping for sale the well known
book, Lady Chatterlys Lover written by D.H. Lawrence. The Magistrate held
that the book was obscene and sentenced the appellant. The court held that it
had the right to restrict the freedom on the grounds of decency and morality.
6. Contempt of Court The constitutional right to freedom of speech does not
prevent the courts from punishing for their contempt spoken or printed words
or any other expression calculated to have that effect.13 The expression
contempt of court is now defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 as under:
a) contempt of court means civil contempt or criminal contempt;
b) civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree,
direction, order, writ or any other process of a court or wilful breach of an
undertaking given to a court;
c) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any
matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which
i)
Scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the
authority of any court
ii)
Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of
any judicial proceedings
iii)
Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to
obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
12 AIR 1976 SC 881.
13 L.R. Frey v. R. Prasad, AIR 1958 Punj 377.

7. Defamation: Defamatory matter exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or

contempt. The law of defamation is divided into libel and slander. Defamatory
matter, if in matter, if in writing, printing or some other permanent medium, is
a libel; if in spoken words or gestures, a slander. Right to free speech does not
entitle us to violate the rights of others.
8. Incitement to an offence This is also a ground added in 1951. The freedom
of speech and expression cannot be used as a licence to incite people to
commit an offence. During the debate in the parliament for the inclusion of
this clause it was argued that the phrase incitement to violence should be
used instead as the word offence has a very wide meaning and can include
any act which is punishable under the Indian Penal Code or any other law.
However, this suggestion was rejected. In State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi14
the supreme court held that incitement to murder or any other violent crime
would generally endanger the security of the state; hence a restriction against
such incitement would be valid law under Article 19(2).
Sedition: Sedition embraces all those practices that, whether by word, deed or
action are calculated to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the State and lead
innocent people to subvert the government15. Incitement to violence and public
disorder is the gist of the offence. However, criticism of the existing
government or system and expression of a desire for a different system
altogether is not prohibited.16

14 AIR 1952 SC 329

15 R. v. Sullivan, (1968) 11 Cox Cases 55.
16 Nihrendu v. Emperor, AIR 1942 FC 22, 26

Restrictionsonthefreedomofmedia
InIndia,therightsofapersonengagedinthemediabusiness arecoveredunder
Article19(1)(g)subjecttorestrictionsunderArticle19(6)whereastherightsofthe
generalpublictofreedomofspeechandexpressionarecoveredunderArticle19(1)
(a),subjecttorestrictionsunderArticle19(2).AccordingtoArticle19(2),reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1) (a) may be
lawfullyenacted.Theeightcircumstancesinwhichthisfundamentalrightmaybe
curtailedarewideranging.Vaguecriteriasuchas'decencyandmorality'and'friendly
relations with foreign states' lay a heavy burden of discretion on the judiciary.
However, some restrictions are necessary as press rights must not be allowed to
overruntherightsofindividualsandtheinterestsofsociety.
Article19(2)doesnotbyitselfcurtailtherighttofreespeechandexpressionit
allowsotherlawstobemadewhichmayhavethateffect.AsclearlystatedinSakal
PapersvUnionofIndia,executiveorderscannotbemadetorestrictArticle19(1)(a)
using 19(2) as justification; the restriction must have the authority of law.
Furthermore,thedeterminationofwhethertherestrictionisreasonableornot6should
bemadeonacasebycasebasis,asageneralstandardcouldnotadequatelycoverthe
rangeofcircumstances inwhichrestrictions mayapply.This willensurethatthe
practicalresultsofactionstakenbythestateareproperlyconsideredtoavoid

casesofdisproportionaterestrictionalong7withtheirlegalform.Entitiesengaged
inthebusinessofnews/mediahaveemergedasaprimesourceofinformation,helping
peopletocultivate opinions onthepolitical, economicandsocialsituationin the
country.Thetraditionalprintmediastillretainsinfluenceandtelevisioniswidely
popular,butpublicopinion,especiallyoftheyouth,canbegaugedthroughsocial
networkingplatformsandthesocalled'newmedia'.Inthisway,themediacontinues
itsroleasakindofnonformaleducator,helpingcitizensto8makejudgments,often
bypresentingviewswhicharecontrarytothoseofthegovernment.Thisvaunted
position occupied by the media, including surveying the judiciary, executive and
legislatureISSUEBRIEFlMediaFreedomandArticle194|www.orfonline.org|
April 2013 alike, does not come without a share of responsibility. Hence the
restrictionsonthebusinessofnews/mediaunderArticle19(6)arenecessarytoensure
an effective protection of the rights of common citizens under Article 19(1) (a).
ContemptofCourtThepressandthejudiciaryhaveacomplexrelationship:onthe
onehand,justicemustbeseentobedone,andthepressarecrucialinproviding
detailsofproceedingsandensuringthatjusticeisadministered.Thesamecoverage,
may, however, interfere with the administration of justice, or influence judges.
Contemptofcourt(whethercivilorcriminal)therebyformsoneoftherestrictionson
Article 19(1)(g), and reasonable means of countering it can be found in the 9
ConstitutionitselfandinotherlegislationlikeTheContemptofCourtsAct,1971.
Civil contempt of court is relatively simple: it involves wilfully disobeying or
breachingajudgmentordirectionofthecourt.Criminalcontempt,however,ismore
nebulously defined. It punishes those acts (including publication), which interfere
with judicial proceedings, and also those, which 'scandalise' the court, thereby
loweringitsauthority.Thedifficultyarisesintryingtodefinewhatwouldscandalise
thecourt,leavingthetermopentointerpretation.Judgesmust,therefore,recognise
whatconstituteslegitimatecriticismanddistinguishitfromattackswhichdemeanthe
court'sdignity.Whiletheprovisionsnotedabovedorestrictfreespeech,theyarealso
necessarytosafeguardjustice,andthefaithofthepeopleintheinstitutionswhich
dispenseit.Thecourtshaveshownthemselvestobeawareofthebalance10required,
andhaveruledthatlimitsofdecencyandfairnessmustapplysothatcontemptlawis
notusedtomuzzlefreediscussion.DefamationAnotheroffencewithbothciviland

criminalaspectswhichthemediafrequentlyencountersisdefamation,andthelaws
protectingreputation.Undersection499oftheIndianPenalCode,defamationisa
criminaloffence,punishablebyafineand/orimprisonment.Defendantsmayrelyon
tenexceptionslistedintheIPC,includingtruestatementsmadeforthepublicgood.
Thefactthatdefamationhasbeenretainedasacriminaloffenceisoftencriticised,
especiallyfromafreespeechperspective.Theargumenthasalsobeenmadethatthe
internationalstandardisincreasinglyagainstcriminalisationofdefamation.Opinions
onpublicconductofpublicservants,whenmadeingoodfaith,areexemptedfrom
criminaldefamation, butthathas notstopped politicians from using thethreat of
criminalsanctionstosilenceunfavourablemediareports.Whilecriminalsanctions
canbeISSUEBRIEFlMediaFreedomandArticle195|www.orfonline.org|April
2013usedunscrupulously,removingthementirely(ashasbeensuggestedrecently)
wouldplaceaburdenofresponsibilityonthemediatousetheirfreedomwithout
damagingthereputationofinnocentparties.Decriminalisationofdefamationwould
meanthatthecivillawswouldbethesoleresorttodealwiththeissue.Thereisno
statuteclearlydefiningthecivillawofdefamation.Asatort,itisgovernedbycase
law and relies upon principles thus developed. The civil law is overwhelmingly
focussedonlibel,whichmakesthepressparticularlysusceptibletoit.Insuchcases,
theoffendingstatementsmustsatisfyfourrequirements.Theymustbe:false,written,
defamatoryandpublished.Foroffendedparties,inmostcases,damagesaretheonly
recourse.Preventingdefamatorystatementsfrombeingpublishedisverydifficult,
precisely because of the threat to free speech presented by such prepublication
injunctions.Thus,bythetimeactioncanbetaken,thedamagetothereputationofthe
victimisalreadydoneandprintedapologiesandmonetarydamagescanonlybeso
muchconsolation.Furthermore,recoveryofdamagescouldtakeaninordinatelylong
timeconsideringthepaceofthelegalsysteminIndia,whereasacriminalcaseis
likelytoberesolvedmorequickly.Thesituationofprivateindividualsandpublic
figures differs greatly. Public figures executing public duties are bound to be
scrutinised, and the courts have affirmed that debate in this regard should be 11
uninhibited.TheSupremeCourtofIndiaheldinRRajagopalvStateofTamilNadu
thattherightofpublicofficialstosuefordamagesisseverelyrestricted,theymay
onlydosoifthedefamatorystatementsregardingtheirofficialactionsweremade

with 'reckless disregard for the truth' (following the malice requirement from
Sullivan). For private citizens, the difficulties in going up against media groups,
whichmayhavewidereachinginfluenceanddeeppockets,areclear.However,they
arealsoprotectedbyarighttoprivacy,whichformspartoftheirfundamentalrights
guaranteedunderArticle21oftheConstitution.Whileprivacyisnotaconstitutional
protectionexpresslyprovided,thejudgmentinRRajagopalconfirmsthateventrue
statements published without consent may be damaging, reinforcing the idea that
privacy is inherent in the right to personal liberty. The government has tried to
circumventtheselawsbefore.In1988,RajivGandhi,whohadcometopowerwithan
unprecedentedmajority,attemptedtopasstheAntiDefamationBill.Theproposed
Billwasvaguelywordedandwidelyviewedasanattempttocombatthecriticism
levelledathimbythepress.However,itwasmetwithsuchvehementopposition,
including protests involving prominent members of the press, that the idea was
dropped. Sedition Criticism of public officials may be acceptable so long as
truthfulness is involved, but critics must be wary of another type of defamation,
namelydefamationagainstthestate.Betterknownassedition,ISSUEBRIEFlMedia
FreedomandArticle196|www.orfonline.org|April2013defamationofthestateis
anoffenceundersection124AoftheIndianPenalCode,1860,andconvictioncan
leadtolifeimprisonment.Theoffenceisspecifiedinthefollowingterms:Whoever,
by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise,bringsorattemptstobringintohatredorcontempt,orexcitesorattempts
toexcitedisaffectiontowards,theGovernmentestablishedbylawinIndia,shallbe
punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with
imprisonmentwhichmayextendtothreeyears,towhichfinemaybeadded,orwith
fine.Thescopeoftheprovisionisverywide,bothinterms ofwhatconstitutes
sedition and how seditious acts are determined. The objective may be nobleto
protecttheintegrityofthegovernmentbutitscompatibilitywithfreespeechanda
rigorousfreepressisquestionable.Thedefinitioninsection124Aistroublesome;
accordingtotheexplanatorynotes,disaffectiontowardsthegovernmentincludes
disloyaltyandallfeelingsofenmity.Anycriticismofthegovernmentcouldbeseen
asdisloyalty,butpartoftheroleofthemediaispreciselytocriticiseaspectsofthe
governmentwhichdonotseemtobefunctioninginwaysthatbestservethepeople.

Politicaldissentisanecessarypartofavibrantdemocracy,ensuringdynamismand
legitimacy.Thecourtshaverecognisedthis,andnarrowedthecircumstancesinwhich
theprotectionagainstseditioncouldbeused.Theconstitutionalityofsection124A,
whilechallenged,wasupheldinKedarNathSinghvStateof12Bihar.However,the
SupremeCourtheldthataseditiousexpressionwouldhavetoincitepublicdisorder
by acts of violence. This was to be distinguished from legitimate criticism of
governmentpoliciesandlawfulexpressionsofdissatisfaction.Usingtheseditionlaw
tocurtailtheseexpressionswouldbeunreasonablyrestrictingthefundamentalrights
guaranteed under Article 19 of the 13 Constitution, and would make the law
unconstitutional.Themediaseemswellprotectedinthisregard,sinceshortofcalling
foraviolentrevolution,theyarefreetoexercisetheirrights.Thelawforprotection
againstseditionisstillproblematic,however.Recentcaseshaveshownchargesbeing
broughtwithoutthe'incitementtoviolence'requirementbeingsatisfied.Possessionof
MaoistliteraturewasenoughtosentenceDr.BinayakSentolifeinprison.Afew
yearslater,AseemTrivediwaschargedwithseditionfordrawingcartoonsdepicting
thestateascorrupt.Althoughthecourtsthrewthechargesouteventually,theknee
jerkreactionoftryingtouseseditionisdeeplytroublingandindicativeofthemindset
ofthegovernment.India'sstanceonseditionhasbeencriticisedinternationallyand
domestically,asitpresentsseriousquestionsaboutmediafreedom.Towhatextent
can the media comment freely about the actions of the government, and the
implicationsthereoftothenation?Thosewhosupportfreediscussioncouldarguethat
offence is the price to be paid for comprehensive analysis of issues. Drawing a
distinction between the state and its officials and policymakers seems arbitrary;
journalists are free to ISSUE BRIEF l Media Freedom and Article 19 7 |
www.orfonline.org|April2013criticisethelatterbutnottheformerasthatwouldbe
seditious.Allowingdissentingopinionsshowsthestrengthoffreespeech,itmeans
nothing if you only allow what you want to hear. There has been opposition to
seditionlawsinIndiasincetheConstitutioncameintoforce.Nehru,speakingbefore
ParliamentontheissueoftheFirstAmendment,said,...sofarasIamconcernedthat
particularSection[124A]ishighlyobjectionableandobnoxiousanditshouldhave
noplacebothforpracticalandhistoricalreasons,ifyoulike,inanybodyoflawsthat
wemightpass.Thesoonerwegetridofitthebetter.Wemightdealwiththatmatter

inotherways...Nehru'smentionof'historicalreasons'hasparticularresonancein
India,recallingthestringentuseoflaws(includingsedition)toquashdiscussionsof
freedomandindependence.Thesuggestionthattheremightbe'otherways'better
waystodealwithpublicdisorderandviolenceissupportedbythewayArticle19
waswritten.DraftsoftheConstitutionconsideredtheuseoftheword'sedition'when
limiting14freespeech,butthisideawasultimatelyrejected.

4. James Madison, speaking to the US Congress in 1794

5. AIR [1962] SC 305 para 863
6. State of Madras v V G Row [1952] SCR 597
7. Dwarkadas Shrinivas v The Sholapur Spinning & Weaving Co Ltd.
[1954] SCR 674
8. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd v Union of India [1985]
SCR (2) 287 9. Articles 129 and 215 allow the Supreme and High
Courts respectively to punish for contempt of court
10. See Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn v RK Jain [2010] Ordinarily,
the Court would not use the power to punish for contempt for
curbing the right of freedom of speech and expression, which is
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Only when the
criticism of judicial institutions transgresses all limits of decency and
fairness or there is a total lack of objectivity or there is a deliberate
attempt to denigrate the institution then the Court would use this
power;
11. AIR [1995] SC 264
12. AIR [1962] SC 955 1
3. Raj Bahadur Gond v State of Hyderabad AIR [1953] HYD 277
14. See Fazl Ali, J in Brij Bhushan and Anr v State of Delhi [1950]
SCR 245