ANALYSIS OF RIGHT TO FREEDOM UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

INTRODUCTION 

Articles 19 to 22 of the Indian Constitution deal with the basic inherent right of personal liberty of  the Indian citizens. Article 19(1) provides the great and basic rights which are the natural rights of  citizens, but these rights are not absolute rights, they are liable to be curtailed by laws made by the  state, to the extent mentioned in Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 under the grounds specified therein. 

Article 19(1) enlists six fundamental freedoms of speech and expression; of assembly; of  movements to form associations: to reside and settle any where in India; and of profession,  occupation, trade or business 

Article 19(2) to (6) recognizes the power of the state to make laws putting reasonable restrictions  in the interest of the general public, security of the state, public order, decency or morality and for  other reasons set out in those clauses. 

These restrictions are imposed by the state, to avoid the potential conflict between individual  liberties and social well-being. As Das J. observed in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)  SC. “Social interest in individual liberty may well have to be subordinated to other greater social  interests.  

REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS IN ARTICLE 19(2) TO ARTICLE 19(6) 

The restrictions which may be imposed under any of the clauses in Article 19 must be “reasonable  restrictions”. The restrictions to be constitutionally valid must satisfy two tests: – 

1) They must be made for the purpose mentioned in Article 19(2) to Article 19(6) 2) They must be reasonable restrictions. 

The “reasonableness of restrictions”, to be imposed by state limits the powers of the legislature  and also opens up the doors for judicial scrutiny, of the laws restraining the freedoms guaranteed  by Article 19.

The constitution nowhere defines the expression “reasonable restriction”. No general and  universal test of reasonableness can be laid down and, as has been observed in State of Madras v.  G. Row (1952 SC 196) the meaning would vary according to which of the six rights is being  restricted by the impugned law. 

In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967 SC), as also in Olga Tellis v. Bombay, it has been held  that the municipal standard is an elastic one it varies with time, space and condition and from place  to place. 

The restrictions can be imposed only by law and not by an executive or departmental instruction.  

The following are the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various decided cases with  respect to the requirement of reasonableness. 

1) In Dwarka Pd. Lakshmi Narain v. State of U.P. (SC 1982), the restrictions should balance  between the individual freedoms and the social control permitted by Article 19(1) and 19(2)  to (6) respectively. No arbitrary invasion on the freedom under Article 19(1) is permitted. 

2) In Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, (AIR 1961 SC 705), the requirement  of reasonableness applies both to substantive and procedural provisions. 

3) In Narottam Das v. State of M.P. (AIR 1964 SC 1667) and Empire Industries Ltd. v.  Union of India (SC, 1985), the principle of natural justice should also be satisfied by the  procedure. 

4) In Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (AIR, 1958 SC), the reasonableness should be tested  objectively from the point of view of the general public. 

5) In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1976 SC, 597), the reasonableness of the  restrictions and not of the law, has to be tested. However under the expanding concept of  reasonableness, the courts have held that the reasonableness, of the law should be tested. 

6) Reasonableness includes total prohibition was held in K. K. Kochnni v. State of Madras  (AIR 1960 SC). 

7) It was held in State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara (AIR 1951 SC, 318, 328) that if a restriction  is imposed in order to carry out the DPSP, it is generally supposed to be reasonable. 8) It was held in Collector of Customs v. Nathu Lal (AIR 1962 SC) that reasonableness and  the American due process of law: the requirement of reasonableness should not be  construed in the light of American “due-process” clause, as that concept is more 

comprehensive, vague and misleading. Our framers deliberately avoided the use of the  word “Due-process” in place of “reasonable”. Each case should be decided on its own facts  like the evil sought to be remedied, the purpose, the time, etc.  

9) The Burden of proving the reasonableness falls upon the state. 

10) These rights are available only to Indian citizens and that too, to natural persons. 

ARTICLE 19(1) (a) 

Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution lays down “All citizens shall have the right to freedom  of speech and expression.” 

Article 19(2) lays down the grounds of restriction upon the freedom of speech and expression.  “Nothing in Sub Clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent  the state from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise  of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of: 

i) The sovereignty & Integrity of India 

ii) The security of the state 

iii) Friendly relations with foreign state 

iv) Public order 

v) Decency 

vi) Morality 

vii) In relation to contempt of court, 

viii) Defamation or 

ix) Incitement to an offence” 

Article 19(1) (a) secures to every citizen the freedom of speech and expression without which the  appeal to reason which is the basis of democracy would be lost. As observed by Patanjali Shastri  J., in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124), “Freedom of speech and expression  lies at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no  public education, so essential for proper functioning of the process of popular government is  possible”.

Article 19(1) (a) grants two freedoms: 

1. Freedom of Speech: The freedoms to express one’s own or others views in verbal (spoken)  form.  

2. Freedom of Expression: The freedoms to express one’s own or other’s views in any of the  forms other than speech, viz. pictures, movies, posters, pamphlets, signs etc. 

Thus the framers of the Constitution recognised the existence and efficacy of other forms (other  than speech) in which one can express one’s views. 

The fundamental principle involved is the people’s right to know and their right to express their  own views and also the views of the others. The right has four broad, special purposes to serve. 

∙ Helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment 

∙ Assist the discovery of truth 

∙ It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision making. ∙ It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance  between stability and social change. 

The freedom of speech and expression also includes the freedom of silence, as has been held in  Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) SC, also known as “The National Anthem case”. 

Therein, three children belonging to Jehovah’s witnesses were expelled from school for refusing  to sing the National Anthem. It was obligatory for the students to do so. However, the children  stood up respectfully when the National Anthem was being sung. They refused to sing the National  Anthem, as it was against their religious faith. The Supreme Court held: 

1) The right under Article 19(1) (a) could be curtailed on grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) only by law and not by executive instructions. 

2) The prevention of insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (a law of legislative and not  executive order) was not violated as the students showed respect by standing up. 3) The Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1) (a) also includes the freedom of silence.

CONCLUSION 

The main goal of Article 19 is to guarantee people’s participation in a democratic process by  allowing them the freedom to make their own decisions. Furthermore, people’s voices ought to be  respectfully heard and unhindered. The ideal of a thriving democracy is embodied in Article 19,  where citizens regularly or sometimes make significant contributions to the government and it is  held accountable for its activities.  

These liberties are still subject to limitations that are appropriate for maintaining national security,  customs, order, and other reasons. The primary authority for judging this fine line between  personal liberties and the greater good is vested in the court. This entails determining if a limitation  is legitimate, appropriate, or necessary. The rulings made by the Supreme Court, which were  previously mentioned, perfectly capture this feeling. The rulings culminate in the supreme courts’  unwavering determination to protect each and every citizen’s basic freedoms and rights.