INTRODUCTION 

The Indian Constitution is an ocean of democratic principles that artfully balances the fundamental rights of its citizens, intending to achieve a stable and orderly society. Central to such purpose lies Article 19, which guarantees a bundle of essential freedoms such as freedom of speech, assembly, association, and the concept of public order, one of the constitutionally permissible grounds for imposing limitations on these very liberties. 

There is a delicate and perpetual challenge in allowing. Your freedoms to flourish, fostering a vibrant economy, and ensuring that they do not emerge as a threat to the collective peace and tranquility of the community. The mechanism by which the state aims to achieve such a balance is known as reasonable restriction, which is fundamental to comprehending the practical application of rights in India. 

ARTICLE 19- NATURAL RIGHTS 

The rights enumerated in Article 19(1) are those great and basic rights which are recognized as natural rights inherent in the status of a citizen. They contain several important liberties of the citizen. The constitution makers, after studying different constitutions of the world, tried to include the essence of other constitutions under Article 19, which states, 

“19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. 

(1) All citizens shall have the right – 

(a) To freedom of speech and expression; 

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;  

(c) to form an association or union;  

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

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

(g) To practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.”

These freedoms are significant for the operation and success of a democratic society. They enable citizens to speak freely about their opinions, views, and criticisms regarding government and public matters in public places without fear. They serve as a stimulus in fostering political discourse and discussion and in passing improved laws. 

If any law happens to be inconsistent with the public or social good, citizens are entitled to protest under Article 19(1)(b). Also, these rights enable citizens to join associations or unions to represent the downtrodden sections of society more effectively and to have greater public participation. They turn out to be critical to the process of people’s right to self-development and realization. In addition to being essential to human personality and development, they contribute to social Cohesion and national unity, enable cultural exchange, economic mobility, and a sense of shared citizenship amongst different communities. They are basic prerequisites for a healthy, vital, and responsive democratic society.

REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS AND PUBLIC ORDER  

These rights are not absolute or uncontrolled. They are qualified and limited. They can be curtailed by laws made or to be made by the State for the public good to the extent mentioned under Clauses 2 to 6 of Article 19. In other words, the exercise of rights by an individual is subject to reasonable limitation and regulation as may be necessary or expedient for the process of general welfare. This principle was reiterated by the court in the case of AK Gopalan V. State of Madras, wherein Das J said, “Social interest in individual liberty may well have to be subordinated to other greater social interests.” The Court calls for a balance between individual rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and the obligation of the state, which is the custodian of interests of the general public, public order, decency or morality, and of public interest that may collectively be described as social welfare.  

The term ‘reasonable’ restriction was not there in the Constitution drafted by the Constituent Assembly. It was added in clause (2) through the 1st Amendment in the year 1951, however, it has not been defined anywhere.  

These reasonable restrictions can be imposed only with the legislature in advance, such as through statute or legislation. It cannot be imposed through mere executive instructions. Additionally, for any statute or legislation to be held against the idea of restriction which are reasonable, its purpose, extent, and urgency to redress social evil must be challenged. 

These restrictions are necessary to maintain public order and the security of the nation.  

In the infamous case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), the bench had clarified on the meaning of the terms ‘law and order’, ‘public order’, and ‘security of the state’ through three concentric circles. 

The largest circle is the ‘law and order’; any breach of law falls within this circle. 

The middle circle is ‘public order’; only those acts or omissions that affect the community at large and which disturb the public peace and safety fall within this circle. 

The smallest and innermost circle is the ‘security of this state’. The acts or omissions threatening the very existence of the state fall within this circle. 

CASE LAWS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 

The Supreme Court, through various judgments and case law evolved the principles and the tests to check the reasonable restrictions. They include, 

1. Direct effect test 
2. In the case of Bennette Coleman & Co. V. Union of India, the majority believes that for judging the infringement of fundamental rights the true test is to determine whether the effect of the impugn action is to abridge the fundamental right. in other words, it is not the direct object of the law or executive action but the direct effect on fundamental right which declares the act or omission as encroaching upon an individual’s right or not. 
3. Another historic case is of Maneka Gandhi V Union of India, wherein it was laid down that any statute may not per se violate Article 19, but the actions taken under such a statute may be violative of such rights. Therefore, the bench laid down the ‘direct and inevitable consequence’ criteria to check the constitutionality of the statutory provision. 
4. In Chintaman Rao v. State of MP, the bench concluded that there must be a proper balance between the fundamental freedoms and social control permitted by Article 19 (2) to (6). In the absence of such a balance, the restriction must be held to be one thing in reasonableness. The constitution would go into the reasonableness of both substantive and procedural parts of the statute. The reasonableness is of the restriction and not of the law 

2. Substantive and procedural prohibition 
3. In the case of Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v State of Madras, the bench held that to be a reasonable restriction, there must be a relation between the restriction and the purpose of the legislation. Unless it is shown that there is a reasonable relation between restrictive legislation and the problem and purpose purported by the legislation, the restriction imposed by the law is unreasonable. 
4. In the case of cellular operators V. TRAI, the bench opined that a reasonable restriction seemed to strike a balance between the freedom guaranteed and social control. The law restricting any of the rights has to qualify the twin test of proportionality of restriction.  
5.  Being a reasonable restriction, reasonable connotes that the limitation imposed should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public. 
6. It should attain the particular interest respectively mentioned in article 19(2) to (6), that is, the restriction should be in the interest of the public and not the person. 

3. Doctrine of proportionality 

Jurisprudentially, proportionality can be defined as the set of rules determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for the limitation of constitutionally protected rights by law to be constitutionally permissible. According to Aharon Barak, 4 subcomponents of proportionality need to be satisfied.  

1. It is designated for proper purposes
2. The measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfillment of that purpose. 
3. The measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that may similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation  
4. There needs to be a proper relationship between the importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing limitations on constitutional rights. 

CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS  

However, there are various challenges and criticisms in the actual implementation of the same, including, 

1. The term public order can be vague and prone to broad interpretation: This could lead to potential misuse. This ambiguity gives significant discretion to the executive, which can sometimes be exercised arbitrarily. The line between the law and order problem and public order disturbances is often blurred in practice. For example, a small, localized protest against government policy might be deemed a law and order issue by some, while authorities may classify it as a public order threat to justify strong measures like section 144 or even preventive detention.  

2. To suppress legitimate dissent, peaceful protest, or critical speech: There are concerns related to the broad definition of public order that can be weaponized by the state to curtail fundamental rights, particularly when the speech or assembly is critical of the government. 

3. Chilling effect: The unreasonable restrictions create a “chilling effect”, often discouraging individuals from exercising their fundamental freedoms. When individuals or groups perceive that expressing certain opinions or participating in public gatherings might result in legal repercussions under the guise of maintaining public order, they may “self-censor” or refrain from exercising their right. This fear suppresses legitimate discourse and democratic participation 

4. The challenge of balancing state security with democratic freedom: It is the prime responsibility of the government to maintain law and order and ensure national security, which must be balanced against the equally vital need to protect the individual liberty that defines a democracy. 

CONCLUSION 

The interplay between Article 19(1) freedoms with public order under Article 19(2) highlights a sensitive constitutional balance. While Article 19(1) ensures basic natural rights, which are necessary for democracy and personal development, the freedoms, however, are not absolute. Their exercise is subject to reasonable restrictions, which are of paramount importance in a viable society, with public order being a prime limitation. The courts, in such seminal cases as Ram Manohar Lohia and Maneka Gandhi, have very mildly articulated public order and formulated such tests to check its effects and proportionality to prevent state power from slipping into an abyss and being arbitrary. Such control is essential. But the subjectivity of public order continues to be the problem, leading all too often to sweeping interpretations and possible steps towards stifling intimate dissent or critical speech. This produces a “chilling effect” that deters citizens from exercising their democratic right. Finding a balance between individual freedom and social order is an ongoing challenge that requires judicial watchfulness, accurate legislation, and wise executive dedication to constitutional principles.

AUTHOR: KAVYA GUPTA

REFERENCES

1. Constitution of India
2. https://www.ebcreader.com/share/99097343 Book on Constitutional Law by Mamta Rao.