Wednesday, 18 December 2024

Constitution of Bharat: Article 19: Part 7

 Here are some significant judgements related to Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession, year-wise:

1950

  • Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to circulate one's views by any means available, and that the State cannot impose restrictions on this right except in the interest of public order, security of the State, and decency or morality.

1951

  • Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950): The Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of the press is an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression, and that the State cannot impose restrictions on the publication of newspapers except in the interest of public order, security of the State, and decency or morality.

1962

  • Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code, but limited its application to acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by violence.

1975

  • State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975): The Allahabad High Court declared Indira Gandhi's election to the Lok Sabha void on charges of electoral malpractices, leading to the imposition of the Emergency. This case highlighted the importance of the right to information and the right to know.

1986

  • Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to remain silent and that no one can be compelled to speak or express themselves against their will.

1989

  • S. Rangarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989): The Supreme Court held that the State can impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of public order, but such restrictions must be justified and not arbitrary.

1994

  • Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): The Supreme Court held that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and that citizens have the right to know about the antecedents of candidates contesting elections.

2002

  • Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): The Supreme Court held that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and that citizens have the right to know about the antecedents of candidates contesting elections.

2005

  • Rajasthan High Court v. Union of India (2005): The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the State cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, and that any restriction must be justified in the interest of public order, security of the State, and decency or morality.

2010

  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which allowed for the arrest of individuals for posting offensive content online, as it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression.

2015

  • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which allowed for the arrest of individuals for posting offensive content online, as it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression.

These judgements have played a crucial role in shaping the interpretation and application of Article 19, ensuring that citizens' fundamental rights are protected while balancing societal interests.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Constitution of Bharat: Article 23: Part 9

Here are 20 landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts from 1947 to 1975 related to Article 23 of the Constitution of India: - ...