The document discusses the right to freedom under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It outlines the six freedoms guaranteed to citizens which include freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession. These freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions. The document elaborates on the scope of freedom of speech and expression and right to privacy. It summarizes some key Supreme Court judgments that have interpreted these rights and laid down guidelines for reasonable restrictions.

1. RIGHT TO FREEDOM
• Art. 19-22 deals with different aspects of right
to freedom
• These articles are basic rights of personal
liberties
• Art. 19 : Six Freedoms to the citizens
(a) Freedom of Speech and Expression
(b) Freedom of Assembly
(c) Freedom to form Associations or Unions or
Cooperative Societies

2. (d) Freedom of movement
(e)freedom to reside and to settle
(f) omitted
(g) Freedom of Profession, Occupation, trade
or business
these freedoms are not absolute
Complete and absolute liberty without any
social control will result in anarchy
The restriction are reasonable and by conferring
powers upon the State in the interest of
community

3. • The restrictions can not be arbitrary
1. The restriction must be for the purpose
mentioned in Art. 19 (2) to (6)
2. The restrictions must be reasonable
Test of Reasonable Restriction –
Art. 19(1) : restriction can only be imposed by
a Law, and not executive or departmental
instructions
Reasonable : implies intelligent care and
deliberation which reason dictate

4. • A Law which arbitrarily or excessively
invades the right of a person;
does not have quality of reasonableness;
right guaranteed in Art. 19(1) and the social
control in Art. 19 (6) must be balanced
The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines
of reasonable restrictions :
1. Reasonable restriction is judged by the
Courts, not by legislature

5. 2. The term reasonable restriction in Art.
19(6) connotes that the limitation imposed
on a person in the enjoyment of his right
should not be arbitrary or of an excessive
nature,
3. Each case is to be judged on its own merit,
it should weighed in the nature of the right
infringed, restriction imposed, the extent
and urgency of the evil sought to be
remedied, the disproportion of the
imposition

6. 4. the restriction must be reasonable form the
substantive as well as procedural stand-point
5. A restriction imposed for securing the objects
and laid down in the Directive Principles of
the State Policy may be regarded as
reasonable restriction
6. The nature of reasonable restriction must be
determined by objective standard and not by
subjective one;
it should be in the interest of public

7. • 7. a restriction must have rational relation
with the object
which the legislature seeks to achieve and
must not be in excess of that object
the grounds for which the legislature can
impose restriction are mentioned in Art. 19
8. The question whether a provision of the Act
provides adequate safeguard against the
abuse of power given to the executive
authority to administer the law is not
relevant;

8. 9. Restriction may also amount to prohibition
under certain circumstances
Right available to ‘Citizens’ only –
u/Art. 19 rights are available to citizens only
and not to non-citizens
corporation or company can not claim a
right u/Art.19;
share holders of a company, associated with
the it can claim for own fundamental rights

9. • Art. 19 (1)(a) and 19(2)
• Freedom of Speech and Expression
• This right is subject to limitations imposed by
Art. 19 (2);
which empowers State to put reasonable
restriction on it :
- security of the State;
- friendly relations with foreign States,
- Public order, decency and morality,
- contempt of court, defamation, incitement to
offence and integrity and sovereignty of India

10. • Freedom of speech and expression means
the right to express one’s own expressions
and opinions freely by
words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or
any other mode
Includes : expression of ideas through any
communicable medium or visible
representation
Connotes : publication; the freedom of press is
included in this category

11. • Freedom of expression has four broad special
purposes to serve
(1) it help an individual to attain self-
fulfilment
(2) it assists in the discovery of truth
(3) it strengthens the capacity of an
individual in participating in decision
making;
(4) it provides a mechanism to establish a
reasonable balance between stability and
social change

12. • Right to speech and expression includes right
to know news and information
• Right to Information Act 2005 :
every citizen to have access to information
controlled by public authorities;
public authority to provide information and
maintain records; consistent with its
operational needs;
records must be catalogued, indexed, and
published in intervals as per norms

13. • Right to vote : a fundamental right
includes right to know about their candidates
Union of India v. Association for democratic
reforms AIR 2002 SC 2112
the petitioners for Democratic Reforms filed
a PIL and
requested the Court for a direction
to implement the recommendation made by
the Law Commission in its 170th report

14. • Accordingly Supreme Court directed Election
Commission
to issue a notification making it compulsory for
Candidates of election to make available
information about their education, assets,
liabilities, and criminal antecedents for the
benefit of voters
Election Commission took the necessary action
Parliament amended the Electoral Law
(Representation of Peoples) Act and
Negatived the Courts judgment and Election
Commissions notification

15. • The validity of Electoral Reforms Law was
challenged on the ground of violative of
citizen’s rights of information u/Art. 19(1)(a);
• S.33 of the amended Representation of People
Act provided “notwithstanding anything
contained in any judgment of any court or any
order of the Election Commission, no candidate
shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such
information, in respect of his election ….”
Thus amended Act provided that only candidates
who are elected, to give all this information

16. • The Court held that Parliament had no
legislative competence to direct the State or
its instrumentality to disobey the orders of
the Court
• The Parliament cannot declare that the law
declared by the Supreme Court is not binding
• The Court restored its verdicts and directed
Election Commission to issue a fresh
notification for the implementation of its
judgment

17. • Accordingly all the candidates for election
must declare information about their
education, assets, liabilities, and criminal
antecedents for the benefit of voters;
• The Court also asked why voters be kept in
dark about the criminal background of the
Candidates ?
• For free and fair election in a democracy, this
is required that all the voters know their own
candidate

18. • Right to freedom of expression :
Union of India v. Cinema Art Foundation AIR
1992 SC 637
The managing trustee of the respondent’s trust
had produced a documentary film on Bhopal
Gas Disaster “Beyond Genocide”
The film also got Golden Lotus award for best
non-feature film of 1987
Minister of Information and Broadcasting
made a declaration in award function that
the award winning films be telecast on
Doordarshan

19. • The respondent submitted film for telecast
It was refused to telecast;
on the ground that it is outdated
and have no relevance for the telecast
The respondent filed a writ petition
challenging the refusal as violation of Art.
19(1)(a),
And for a mandamus to Doordarshan to
telecast the same

20. • The High Court held that the respondent’s
right u/Art. 19(1)(a) obligated Doordarshan
to telecast the film
• The Court held that this refusal was purely
an executive order;
• It was not law within the meaning of Art.
19(2),
• And hence mandamus can be issued to
Doordarshan for telecast of the film

21. • Further the Court held that
Respondent has a Fundamental Right
u/Art. 19(1)(a) to exhibit his film,
the Union of India failed to prove that it has
right to refuse this Fundamental Right
The Doordarshan could not prove the test of
reasonable grounds under Art. 19 (2) for the
provision against Art. 19(1)

22. • Telephone Tapping : Invasion on right to
privacy
• In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union
of India AIR 1997 SC 568,
• There was telephone tapping of many
political persons in the recent years,
petitioner is a voluntary organisation; filed a
petition under Art. 32 as PIL;
it challenged the validity of Section 5(2) of
Indian Telegraph Act 1885, which permits the
interception of messages

23. • u/S. 5 (2) : ‘occurrence of any public’ or
‘In the interest of public safety’
are the grounds of reasonable action;
Unless these two conditions are satisfied,
Govt. can not exercise its powers under S.5
(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885;
The expression ‘public safety’ means
a state or condition of freedom from danger or
risk for the people at large;

24. • The Court held that Telephone tapping
violates Art. 19(1)(a) if the reasonable grounds
stated in Art. 19(2) are not satisfied;
• It also laid down that an order of telephone
tapping can only be issued by the Home
Secretary of the Centre and State
Governments
• The order is subject to review by a high power
review committee and the period can not
exceed two months unless approved