Article. 19 of The Indian Constitution by Afreen Shah

Introduction
The fundamental freedoms, outlined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution , are an essential
element and core principle of India’s democratic institutions. These are the freedoms essential for
the exercise of individual liberty and the smooth functioning of a democratic system. These
freedoms, which encompass the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution, are intended to
improve citizens' social freedom and protect them from the state's arbitrary power and dominance.
Article 19, originally provided seven freedoms; however, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978
eliminated the right to property, bringing the number down to six. Consequently, there has been
considerable judicial interpretation and debate over the appropriate balance between the public
interest and individual rights with regard to Article 19.
Freedom of Speech and Expression
The freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to the democratic principles of India. It allows
individuals to express their thoughts, ideas, and opinions freely. This right is vital for the propagation
of diverse viewpoints and development of a healthy public discourse. The importance of this
freedom has been emphasized by notable judgements. In *Romesh Thapar*, the Supreme Court held
that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to propagate one’s views through print
media or other channel and is essential for the proper functioning of a democratic society. In
*Bennett Coleman*, the Court struck down governmental restrictions on newspaper sizes,
emphasizing that such constraints impinge on the freedom of the press, an extension of the freedom
of speech.
However, freedom of speech is not unlimited. Reasonable restrictions, as per Article 19 (2), may be
imposed in the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity, national security, friendly relations with
foreign nations, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, contempt and incitement to
crime. The test of reasonableness has been explained in detail in cases like *Shreya Singhal v. Govt.
Union of India* (2015), in which the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act,2000, as ambiguous and overbroad, thus infringing upon this freedom.
Freedom of Assembly
Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peacefully without arms, allowing citizens to hold
assemblies, demonstrations and processions. The right to assembly is essential for mass action and
public protest, as was emphasized in Himat lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973),
where the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the right to hold public assemblies on public
streets. But this right is usually subject to restrictions aimed at maintaining public order as stated in
article 19 (3). In *Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra* (1961), the Supreme Court upheld the
restrictions imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prevent unlawful
assemblies.
Freedom of Association
The freedom to form associations or unions, enshrined in Article 19(1)(c), is important for the
protection of labor rights and the functioning of civil society organizations. The case of *Damyanti
Naranga v. Union of India* (1971) emphasized that the right to form associations encompasses the
right to their continuance and operation. On the other hand, Article 19 (4) grants the state to impose
restrictions on grounds such as public order and morality. In O. K. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph (1962), the
Supreme Court upheld regulations that prohibited government employees from participating in
political activities.
Freedom of Movement and Residence
Article 19(1)(d) ensures the right to move freely throughout the territory of India . This freedom
guarantees that citizens can travel within India without any hindrance. The Supreme Court, in
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967), emphasized that this right is fundamental for
national unity and integrity. Article 19 (5) states that restrictions can be imposed to the protect the
interests of the general public or the interests of any Scheduled Tribe . In Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v.
State of Bihar (1990), the Supreme Court acknowledged the state's authority to restrict movement in
mining areas for safety grounds.
Freedom to Reside and Settle in Any Part of the Territory of India: Article 19(1)(e) allows citizens to
reside and settle in any part of the country. It is essential for personal liberty, economic integration
and the movement of labor. In State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (1962), the Court
overturned a law that imposed arbitrary restrictions on the movement and settlement of individuals
highlighting the fact that any restriction on this right must be reasonable and in the interest of the
public. In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of
police surveillance and its impact on personal liberty. The Court held that excessive police
surveillance that violates the right to privacy and the ability to reside and settle down was
unconstitutional unless justified by compelling reasons of public policy.
### Freedom of Profession
Article 19(1)(g) permits citizens to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or
business. This freedom is essential for economic liberty and earning a living. In *Chintaman Rao v.
State of Madhya Pradesh* (1950), the Supreme Court struck down a law that imposed unreasonable
restrictions on the bidi manufacturing industry, emphasizing that such restrictions must be justified
as reasonable. However, this right too is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the
general public as per Article 19 (6). In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005),
the Supreme Court upheld the ban on cow slaughter, recognizing the state's authority to impose
restrictions in favour of public health and morality.
Conclusion
The concept of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to 19(6) provides the State with the
authority to impose limitations on these freedoms to ensure that their exercise does not jeopardize
public interest. The term "reasonable" implies that restrictions should not be arbitrary or excessive
and must have a legitimate aim. The judiciary has an important role to play in monitoring these
restrictions to prevent abuse of power. In *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* (1978), the Supreme
Court broadened the interpretation of personal liberty to emphasize that any law imposing
restrictions must pass the test of reasonableness.
In conclusion, Article 19 of the Indian Constitution stands as a fundamental safeguard for individual
freedoms and democratic governance. Its provisions reflect a commitment to protect the civil rights
recognizing the need for reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and societal harmony. The
evolving interpretations of Article 19 through landmark judicial pronouncements illustrate the
dynamic nature of constitutional rights in response to societal changes and challenges. As India
continues to grapple with the issues of balancing freedom of speech and expression, individual rights
and national interest, the discourse surrounding Article 19 remains crucial. Protecting these rights is
not only essential for the functioning of democracy but also for fostering a just and equitable society
where every citizen can participate fully in the democratic process. Even in the face of emerging
social and political threats and challenges, there is an ongoing challenge to ensure the preservation
and respect of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 .

Article. 19 of The Indian Constitution by Afreen Shah

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article. 19 of The Indian Constitution by Afreen Shah

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Freedom of Speech and Expression

Freedom of Movement and Residence

### Freedom of Profession

You might also like