Here are more significant judgements from High Courts of India related to Article 19:
K.P. Sashidharan vs State of Kerala (2000): The Kerala High Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to criticize the government and its policies, and that such criticism cannot be suppressed unless it incites violence or public disorder.
Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994): The Madras High Court ruled that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to publish true and accurate information about public officials, and that such publication cannot be restricted unless it is defamatory or incites violence.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India (1985): The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to publish news and information, and that the State cannot impose unreasonable restrictions on this right.
V.K.Vanaja vs Union of India (2019): The Madras 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.
Kunal Kamra vs Union of India (2024): The Bombay High Court declared Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as unconstitutional, ruling in favor of the petitioners.
Central government’s chronic struggle to legislate on the Internet in accordance with Article 19 - Part I: The Bombay 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.
State of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Sambasiva Rao (1960): The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled 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.
State of Kerala vs N. M. Thomas (1976): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment.
State of Rajasthan vs Jagannath (1976): The Rajasthan High Court upheld the validity of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment.
State of Madras vs Gopal Rao Emani (1957): The Madras High Court upheld the validity of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment.
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