Article 19 of the Indian Constitution- A Panoply of Freedoms.

Dated: April 03, 2022

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards individual rights deemed significant by the constitution's founders, protects six fundamental freedoms. They are enshrined as follows;

(1) All citizens shall have the right-

    (a) to freedom of speech and expression;

    (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

    (c) to form associations or unions;

    (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

    (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

    (f) omitted

    (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

 

The concept of Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution was inspired by the Bill of Rights in the United States. We use the phrase "we the people" in our preamble, which implies equality. The language in the two preambles is splendidly similar. The US Constitution established the rule of law, judicial independence, judicial review of legislative acts, and the impeachment process. This article is available only to the citizens of India.

 

19 (1) (a)- All citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech of expression;

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”- George Washington (Newberg Address, March 15, 1783)

A functioning democracy necessitates the participation of all citizens in the country's political and social processes. In a healthy democracy, there is an abundance of freedom of speech, opinion, and expression in all forms. It is the first and most important condition of liberty, and it has a tremendous influence on public opinion.

Speech is God's gift to mankind. Through Speech a human being conveys his thoughts, sentiments and feeling to others. Freedom of speech and expression is thus a natural right which a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a basic human right. Thus, freedom to air one's views is the life line of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death-knell to democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. Efforts by intolerant authorities to curb or suffocate this freedom have always been firmly repelled. More so when public authorities have betrayed autocratic tendencies. This was held by the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corpn. Of India & Ors V. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah. [1]

 

Reasonable restrictions on 19 (1) (a): While Section 19(1) (a) bestows right to freedom of speech and expression on all citizens, Section 19

(2) places reasonable restrictions on the said right and hence, Section 19(1) (a) cannot be read in

isolation from Section 19 (2). Section 19 (2) allows imposition of reasonable restrictions by the State

in the interests of

(i) the sovereignty and integrity of India

(ii) the security of the State

(iii) friendly relations with foreign States

(iv) public order

(v) decency

(vi) morality

(vii) in relation to contempt of court

(viii) defamation

(ix) incitement to an offence

 

The Indian Constitution, in Article 19(1)(a), guarantees freedom of expression and expression to Indian citizens but not to foreign nationals. Freedom of expression is defined in Article 19(1)(a) as the right to express oneself through any medium, including writing, speaking, gesture, or any other form. It also includes the right to communicate as well as the right to spread or publish one's opinion. The freedom of speech and expression is a multi-layered, intricate concept on which much ink has been spilled and it has sparked much debate. Its various aspects can be examined by studying various case laws based on it.

Right to remain silent: Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State of Kerala & Ors, 1986

Students from a Kerala school were expelled for not singing the National Anthem in this case. They followed the Jehovah's Witnesses' religious convictions and objected to performing the song since it supposedly went against their religious beliefs. The right to silence of three children was protected by the Supreme Court in this case after they were expelled from school for refusing to sing the National Anthem. The Supreme Court declared that a person who has genuine religious conscientious objections to singing the National Anthem cannot be coerced to do so. As a result, the freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom to be silent. [2]

Right to obtain information:

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2001

The Association for Democratic Reforms filed a petition with the Delhi High Court to compel the adoption of specific suggestions aimed at improving India's voting process. As requested by the Government of India, the Law Commission issued recommendations that the Election Commission require all candidates to disclose personal background information to the public, including criminal history, educational qualifications, personal financial details, and other information necessary for judging a candidate's capacity and capability. Directions have been issued by the High Court to the Election commission to secure to voters the information concerning antecedents of the candidates contesting election. [3]

Ozair Husain v. Union of India, 2003

Right to know whether food products, cosmetics and drugs are of non-vegetarian or vegetarian origin is a fundamental right of consumer. Accordingly, packages of non-vegetarian or vegetarian products should bear respective symbol. It was clarified by High Court that lifesaving drugs should be made exception in which case patient need not be informed as to whether drug contained part of any animal-Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, rule no. 32. [4]

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975

The decision taken in this case precipitated a political crisis in India, causing the government of Indira Gandhi to proclaim a period of emergency from 1975 to 1977. The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court's order to release a government record. Raj Narain requested that the Uttar Pradesh government produce the Blue Book, which contained security protocols for India's Prime Minister's travel. Government officials refused to provide the document, arguing it was an unpublished official record that was against the public interest. According to the Court, the document was not an unpublished official record since the government official did not file an affidavit claiming it to be one. The Court further reasoned that it has the right to decide whether a document is of public interest. As a result of this case, it is considered that a state of emergency was issued. [5]

Freedom of Press

It is implied that freedom of press is included in the definition of freedom of speech and expression. The free dissemination of ideas is a necessary goal, which can be accomplished through the press or any other medium. It also includes blogs and websites. The fourth pillar of democracy, the media, is vital to a country's social, political, economic, and foreign affairs. As a result, a free press is an absolute necessity for a democracy to live and develop, as well as to sustain the ethos of good and open governance. It is obvious that the right to free speech and expression includes the right to publish and circulate one's ideas, opinions, and other points of view with complete freedom and through any and all available means of publication. The freedom of the press includes the right to spread ideas and opinions, as well as the right to publish and circulate them. However, freedom of the press, like freedom of expression, is not absolute.

 

“Freedom of Speech and of the Press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of Government, is possible.”  This was observed in Romesh Thappar vs The State of Madras by Justice Patanjali Sastri.

Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 1984

Prior to this notification newsprint had enjoyed exemption from customs duty. The petitioners challenged the import duty on newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act 1981, as modified by a notification under the Customs Act 1962 with effect from March 1, 1981. They contended that after this notification the costs and circulations had been affected highly and it also had a crippling effect on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the freedom to practice any trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g).

The Supreme Court of India in this case held that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution does not use the phrase “freedom of press” in its language, but it is contained within Article 19(1) (a). There cannot be any interference with the freedom of press in the name of public interest. The purpose of the press is to enhance public interest by publishing facts and opinions, without which a democratic electorate cannot take responsible decisions. It is, therefore, the primary duty of courts to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it contrary to the constitutional mandate. [6]

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994

A prisoner named Auto Shankar, who was held for murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment and death sentence, wrote an autobiography when he was imprisoned. The book discussed his personal life and his relation with many senior police officials, lot of whom have said to be involved with him in many illegal acts. Before his death sentence, he handed over the book to his wife after informing the prison officials of the same and the wife gave the book to the petitioners i.e., the editor, the associate editor, the printer and the published of a Tamil Magazine, for its publication. The Inspector General, when he got to know about the book, wrote to the published stating that the contents of the book were false and untrue, and that the book was defamatory in nature and that strict legal action will be taken against them if they proceed with publishing the book. The Tamil Magazine editor filed a petition against the Inspector General of Prisons to prevent him from violating their and the prisoner’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Supreme Court in this case held that the magazine had the right to publish the autobiography written by the prisoner, without his consent or authorization. It held that the state cannot prevent the publication but may sue the plaintiff for defamation after the article is published, but they had no right to stop the petitioners from publishing the book. It held that every person has the right to publish his/her autobiography because of his/her fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and hence, the case was in favour of the petitioners. [6]

Censorship in movies:

K.A. Abbas v. The Union of India & Anr, 1970

The Supreme Court of India upheld the Cinematograph Act of 1952's restrictions on public display and dismissed a challenge challenging the Act's censorship powers. After a sequence depicting immoral trafficking, prostitution, and economic exploitation by pimps was eliminated, the petitioner's film was denied an unrestricted viewing certificate. The scene was deemed unsuitable for kids. Prior censorship and the arbitrary exercise of powers conferred by the Cinematograph Act, he said, had infringed on his right to free expression. However, this alone was deemed insufficient to overturn the Act's provisions. Concerning the issue of insufficient guidelines in the Cinematograph Act and arbitrary exercise of powers under the same Act, the Court determined that the guidelines provided by the Act, when read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of the Constitution, were sufficiently clear. It did, however, recommend that the guidelines distinguish between artistic and non-artistic expression when assessing obscenity. The Court ruled that prior censorship fell within the reasonable restrictions on free expression allowed by the Act, and that the Act was sufficiently clear to prevent arbitrary exercise of the powers granted by it. [7]

19 (1) (b) All citizens shall have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;

Article 19 (1) (b) confers upon all citizens right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The right to assembly is an extension of Section 19 (1) (a) and is important for maintaining free flow of ideas in the society. The right to assembly includes right to hold meetings, and take out public processions. The assembly has to be non-violent, without arms and should not breach public peace. The assembly must be peaceful and harmonious and it must be unarmed and not threatening the safety of the people. The said right embodies the essence of democracy. Article 19 (1) (b) has always been a matter of debate and has been reviewed, studied and interpreted numerous times by the Supreme Court. 

Reasonable restrictions on 19 (1) (b): Article 19(3) empowers the state to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom to assemble peacefully without arms in the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity, as well as public order.

Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also talks about unlawful assemblies. Section 144(6) gives the government the power to make an assembly of 5 or more people in certain cases an unlawful assembly. Chapter viii of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the conditions when an assembly becomes ‘unlawful’. According to this section, an assembly of five or more persons becomes an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons comprising the assembly is-

(a) to repel and resist the execution of any law or legal process,

(b) to commit any sort of mischief or criminal trespass,

(c) to obtain the possession of any property using force,

(d) to impel and coerce a person to do what he is not legally bound to do or omit which he is

legally entitled to do,

(e) to overawe, that is, to appall and astonish the government by means of criminal force or show

of criminal force or any public servant in the exercise of his lawful powers. [7]

 Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident, 2011:

The case was taken up by the Supreme Court suo moto, when the Government imposed Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and attempted to suppress a peaceful crowd of sleeping protesters in the Ramlila Maidan. This was followed by an evacuation of the protest ground, at 12:30 pm, using water guns, tear gas etc. which resulted in many injuries and one death. The case discussed the imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC, and examined the procedural safeguards which would have to be followed. It held that in order to pass an order under Section 144, there must be co-existence of material facts, an imminent threat and the requirement for immediate preventive steps in order to prevent harm. The Court reaffirmed that passing an order under Section 144 was not violative of the freedom under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. It also held that taking prior police permission for holding protests would not infringe the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). This would fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions, contemplated under Articles 19(2) and 19(3).

In the present case, the Court held that there was no imminent need to intervene, and therefore the restriction placed by the imposition of Section 144 was unreasonable, and was unwarrantedly executed. The Court accordingly ordered for criminal cases to be instituted against both the police and the members of the protest who indulged in destruction of property. It also ordered disciplinary action against those police personnel who resorted to excessive use of force, and who did not helpin the evacuation of the people from the ground.

Justice Chauhan in his concurring opinion held that the acts amounted to brutal use of force that were wholly unjustified under Articles 19 and 21. He also opined that the actions of the police infringed upon the right to privacy. He observed that the right to life envisaged the right to sleep peacefully as well, and any unjustified intrusion would amount to an invasion of privacy, which he recognized to be an essential facet of the right to life and human dignity. [8]

 

19 (1) (c) All citizens shall have the right to form associations or unions;

In a person's life, associations, clubs, groups, and other organisations play a vital role. They also play a vital part in shaping his perspective and influencing him to adopt a larger perspective on everything that occurs in society. The freedom to form associations and unions encompasses the ability to form corporations, societies, trade unions, partnership firms, and clubs, among other things. The right extends beyond the simple formation of a corporation to the corporation's establishment, administration, and functioning.

The landmark case of TK Rangarajan vs the State of Tamil Nadu held that the right to strike is not

included in this right.

Damyanti Naranga vs The Union Of India And Others, 1971

The Supreme Court ruled that the right to form an association necessarily implies that the person forming the association also has the right to continue to be associated with only those who voluntarily admit themselves to the association. Any law that introduces members into a voluntary association without giving the members the option to exclude them, or any law that removes the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it, will be a violation of the right to form an association. [10]

Reasonable restrictions on 19 (1) (c): Clause (4) of Article 19 empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of association and union in the interests of public order, morality, India's sovereignty, or integrity.

 

19 (1) (d) All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India;

The Supreme Court ruled in Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1963) that the right to move freely throughout India's territory entails the right of locomotion, which entails the right to move wherever and however one pleases.

 The HC had instructed the authorities to adopt various actions against people involved in obstructing highways and damaging public property, according to the commission in Chambara Soy vs State of Orissa in 2008. The court also asked the Principal Secretary of the Home Department and the Director General of Police to respond to whether the court-recommended measures are being implemented in the state, as well as whether the protestors who were blocking the road could be punished in accordance with the court's orders.

Reasonable restrictions on 19 (1) (d): Article 19(5) empowers the government to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom to move freely throughout India's territory and the freedom to reside or settle in any part of India's territory in the interest of the general public or the protection of any Scheduled Tribe's interests.

 

 

19 (1) (e) All citizens shall have the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd,1995.

Right to shelter is a fundamental right, which springs from the right to residence assured in Art.19(1) (e) and right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution. No doubt their construction has also to be in accordance with lay out and building rules but that would not be a ground to refuse permission to them when they approached the authorities to sanction the same in accordance with law.

The purpose of the clause is to eliminate internal barriers in India or any of its constituent states. The right to live in a country and the right to freely move around it are complimentary and typically go hand in hand. [9]

Reasonable restrictions on 19 (1) (e): Article 19(5) empowers the government to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom to move freely throughout India's territory and the freedom to reside or settle in any part of India's territory in the interest of the general public or the protection of any Scheduled Tribe's interests.

 

Article 19(1) established seven fundamental freedoms, including the freedom to hold and acquire property 19(1) (f), which was struck down by the Constitution (Fourty-Fourth Amendment) Act of 1978.

 

19 (1) (g) All citizens shall have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Trade, commerce, and intercourse shall be free, according to Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, and may be conducted via ocean transportation or internal conveyance. The clauses in the Indian Constitution pertaining to freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse were derived from the Australian Constitution.

M/s Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India

The Supreme Court held in this case that the right to carry on any business includes the right to start, carry on, or close down any undertaking, and that payment of compensation to employees is not a condition precedent to the closure of business. The Court declared unequivocally in this instance that it is wrong to suggest that an employer has no authority to cease a firm once it has been created. If he has such a right, which he certainly has, it must be a basic right protected in Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution's right to carry on any enterprise. [10]

Reasonable restrictions on 19 (1) (g): This right is regulated by 19 (6) which states that State can curtail this right with reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public. A law relating to professional or technical qualifications is necessary for practicing a profession. A law laying down professional qualification will be protected under Article 19(6) By state monopoly: Subclause (ii) of Article 19(6) empowers the state to enact legislation to create state monopolies in any trade, business, industry, or service, either partially or completely. The right of a citizen to trade is subordinated to the state's right to create a monopoly in its favour.

 

‘Reasonable’ Restrictions: State of Madras vs. V.G. Row (AIR 1952 SC 196) SC held that there could

be no general pattern of reasonableness which was applicable to all cases, and that it would have to be determined individually. This could be based upon factors such as the duration and extent of the restrictions, the circumstances under which and the manner in which that imposition had been authorized, the nature of the right infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition and the prevailing conditions at the time, as was held by Court in the case of Chintamanrao and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1951 SC 118). [11]

 

Art 19 is a collection of rights that all Indian citizens have. One of the most fundamental human needs is freedom, which plays a critical role in the social process. It is a "cluster of freedoms" to which we are all entitled. As Indian citizens, we have certain fundamental rights. Part III of India's constitution safeguards fundamental rights. We all have universal rights from the moment we are born. No one person or state has the authority to deny us our rights.

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

~ Nelson Mandela (Rivonia Trial Speech in South Africa in 1964)

 

 

 

 

References

 

[1]

Life Insurance Corpn. Of India & Ors V. Prof. Manubhai D. Shah, 22 July, 1992.

[2]

Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors, 11 August, 1986.

[3]

Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, 2001.

[4]

Ozair Husain v. Union of India, 2003.

[5]

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975.

[6]

[Online]. Available: https://legaldesire.com/10-landmark-judgements-relating-to-freedom-of-speech-in-india/.

[7]

[Online]. Available: https://lawtimesjournal.in/right-peaceful-assembly/.

[8]

[Online]. Available: https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/in-re-ramlila-maidan-incident.

[9]

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Co-op. Housing Society Ltd, 1995.

[10]

M/s Hathising Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1960.

[11]

State of Madras vs. V.G. Row, 1952.

[12]

Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras, 26 May, 1950.

 

 

 

 


Top Stories