0% found this document useful (0 votes)
35 views39 pages

Module-Ii: Media and The Constitutional Framework

Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 39

MODULE-II

MEDIA AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

1. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN INDIAN


CONSTITUTION
2. INTERPRETATION OF MEDIA FREEDOM
3. ISSUES OF PRIVACY, MEDIA AND THE LAW
4. RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
5. CASE STUDIES ON MEDIA AND FREE
EXPRESSION
• Since 1945, many new nations have been
constructed by revolution, partition or voluntary
grants of sovereignty.
• The Constitution of India embodies a detailed
scheme of "ordered liberty," with a full-fledged
parliamentary democracy and a system of judicial
control to preserve individual rights even against
a popular majority.
• An understanding of Indian institutions is
necessary to an appraisal of liberty's chance to
survive, for without their support, the constitution
would be an embodiment of empty platitudes.
The placement of Article 19 within the Constitution is revealing—it is found in
Part III and is therefore a 'fundamental right'. Pertinently, Part III of the
Constitution does not only confer fundamental rights but also confirms their
existence and gives them protection.
Article 19(2) does not by itself curtail the right to free
speech and expression—it allows other laws to be made
which may have that effect. As clearly stated in Sakal Papers
v Union of India, AIR [1962] SC 305 para 863, executive
orders cannot be made to restrict Article 19(1) (a) using
19(2) as justification; the restriction must have the
authority of law. Furthermore, the determination of
whether the restriction is reasonable or not should be
made on a case by case basis (State of Madras v V G Row
[1952] SCR 597), as a general standard could not
adequately cover the range of circumstances in which
restrictions may apply. This will ensure that the “practical
results” of actions taken by the state are properly
considered—to avoid cases of disproportionate restriction
—along with their legal form.
• Entities engaged in the business of news/media have emerged as a
prime source of information, helping people to cultivate opinions
on the political, economic and social situation in the country.
• The traditional print media still retains influence and television is
widely popular, but public opinion, especially of the youth, can be
gauged through social networking platforms and the so-called 'new
media'.
• In this way, the media continues its role as a kind of non-formal
educator, helping citizens to make judgments, often by presenting
views which are contrary to those of the government. 8

• This vaunted position occupied by the media, including surveying


the judiciary, executive and legislature alike, does not come
without a share of responsibility.
• Hence the restrictions on the business of news/media under Article
19(6) are necessary to ensure an effective protection of the rights
of common citizens under Article 19(1) (a).
• The right that springs from Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and
unchecked. There cannot be any liberty absolute in nature and
uncontrolled in operation so as to confer a right wholly free from
any restraint, Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union
of India (2012) 2 MLJ 32 (SC), 2012 (2) SCALE 682.
• Article 15 (5) does not abrogate the fundamental right enshrined
under Article 19 (1) (g). If at all there is an abridgement of
Fundamental Right, it is in a limited area of admission to
educational institutions and such abridgement does not violate
the basic structure of the Constitution, Ashoka Kumar Thakur v.
Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1, 2008 (5) SCALE 1.
Upon realization of the dream of independence in 1947,1 India prepared and
adopted a constitution, which became effective on January 26, 1950.
Its objects, as declared in the preamble, are: "to secure to all its citizens:
"JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
"LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
"EQUALITY of status and opportunity; and to promote among them all
"FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation.“

The constitution guarantees, as "Fundamental Rights," the civil liberties of the


individual against encroachment by any agency, including the legislature, and commits
their defence to an independent judiciary. Freedom of speech and its complementary
rights of public meeting and free association are among the Fundamental Rights.
In its present form, the speech guarantee reads:
"19. (1) All citizens shall have the right-
"(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
"(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall effect 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 the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency
or morality, or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an
offence."
People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, AIR[2003] SC 2363
• Voters have a fundamental right to know relevant qualifications of candidates for office, including
information about their income and assets. Accordingly, a section of a law stating that candidates could
not be compelled to disclose any information about themselves other than their criminal records was
unconstitutional.
• The Parliament then essentially nullified part of that ruling by amending the Representation of the
People Act so as to require political candidates to disclose certain criminal records; namely, any charges
or convictions for any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more.
• Moreover, the Act expressly stated that no candidate could be compelled to disclose any additional
information, including educational qualifications and assets and liabilities, “notwithstanding  anything
contained in the judgment of any court or directions issued by the Election Commission” (Section 33B)
• The petitioner in the instant case, the Union for Civil Liberties (UCL), filed a petition with the Supreme
Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 33B. In particular, UCL contended that the provision
was arbitrary on its face and violated fundamental rights of the voters as previously recognized by the
Supreme Court; and “that  without exercise  of  the right to know  the relevant  antecedents  of  the
candidate,  it  will  not  be possible  to have free and fair  elections”. The interveners submitted that the
Amended Act was consistent with the 2002 judgment and “that it cannot be held that a voter has any
fundamental right of knowing the antecedents/assets of a candidate contesting the election”.
• With respect to the relationship between the right to access asset declarations  of  the  candidates and
the right to privacy, the Court emphasized that the right to privacy is not absolute and “a person having
assets or income is normally required to disclose the same under the Income Tax Act  or such  similar
fiscal legislation” (pp. 29-30).
• For all of the above reasons, the Court declared Section 33-B of the Amended Act of Representation of
the people Act “to be illegal, null and void”.
Right to know
Whether ‘Right to know’ about the activities of the
State includes within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (a)
that is ‘Right to freedom to speech and expression,
(a) in L.K. Koolwal vs. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1988
Raj.2, the Rajasthan High Court gave judgement that
‘Right to know’ about the activities of the State
includes within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (a).
(b) the state has authority to impose any restrictions
about ‘ Right to know’ in the interest of public policy
and for the national integrity and security.
(c) ‘Right to know’ is subject to the Official Secrets
Act and Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act.
State of U.P. Vs. Raj Narain [(1975) 4 SCC428]
RIGHT TO KNOW
Secrecy claimed for transaction =/=public security(Mathew. J.)

S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India [(1981) Suppl. SCC Page 87]
Bhagwati, J. Observed
Peoples’ right to know about governmental affairs was emphasized in
the following words:
“No democratic Government can survive without accountability and the
basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have
information about the functioning of the Government.”

These two decisions have recognized that the right of the


citizens to obtain information on matters relating to
public acts flows from the fundamental right enshrined in
Article 19(1) (a).
Dinesh Trivedi Vs. Union of India [(1997) 4 SCC306]
The issue is whether background papers and investigatory reports which were referred
to in Vohra Committee’s Report could be compelled to be made public.
Ahmadi C.J observed: “ In modern Constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that
citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Government which, having been
elected by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of governance aimed at their
welfare. However, like all other rights, even this right has recognised limitations; it is by
no means, absolute.”
ARTICLE 19(2): In Cricket Association’s case(The secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association of Bengal) the learned Judge Jeevan Reddy was of
the view that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be so exercised as to
endanger the interest of the nation or the interest of the society, even if the
expression ‘national interest’ or ‘public interest’ has not been used in Article 19 (2).
The following observations of the U.S. Supreme Court in Giltow Vs. New York [(1924)
69 L.Ed. 1138] are very relevant in this context:
“it is a fundamental principle, long established, that the freedom of speech and the
Press which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak
or publish, without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and
unbridle license that gives immunity for every possible use of language, and prevents
the punishment of those who abuse this freedom.”
Khaja Ahmed Abbas vs. Union of
India[(1970) 2 SCC 781].
In this case Khwaja Ahmed Abbas produced a documentary ‘A tale of four cities’, in
which he screened certain areas of Red Light Areas (Debauching Centres) in Bombay.
The Film Censor Board granted A-Certificate rejecting the claim of the producer to
grant U-Certificate. Abbas challenged the act of Film Censor Board contending that
pre-censorship was against the spirit of Article 19 (1) (a) ‘Freedom of Speech and
Expression’.
Tracing the evolution of film censorship, the Chief Justice Hidayatullah noted that the
Indian film industry lacked a professional self-regulatory body like the Motion Picture
Association of America. Therefore, if the content of films were to be regulated, only
the government could do so.
Although motion pictures in the United States generally enjoyed a significant degree
of First Amendment protection, they were not completely free from restrictions.
So the Supreme Court held that,- pre-censorship was justified under Article 19 (2),
and the State was empowered to impose ‘reasonable restrictions’ on freedom of
speech and expression ‘.
Link with US Constitution

A key difference is that in the US


Constitution freedom of the press is
explicitly safeguarded. In the US, free
speech can be restricted through
Article 19(1) (a) draws inspiration defamation laws or because of national
from the First Amendment to the security concerns, but the courts have
United States Constitution, allowed the press much leeway when
which says, “Congress shall make discussing and criticising issues
pertaining to public life. Famously, in
no law respecting an New York Times Co. v Sullivan, the
establishment of religion, or Supreme Court of the United States said
prohibiting the free exercise that “discussing the management of
thereof; or abridging the public officials” was fundamental to
their form of government. A strong line
freedom of speech, or of the was taken against behaviour that
press; or the right of the people threatened free speech for the sake of
peaceably to assemble, and to offended politicians. Censorship of the
petition the Government for a press was antithetical to the American
redress of grievances.” way of life envisioned by the founding
fathers of that nation, who believed
that “the censorial power is in the
people over the government, and not in
the government over the people.”
In Indian Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India (1985)1 SCC 641
Facts:
The central Government imposed 40% ad valorem plus Rs. 1000 per MT as customs duty on
newsprint by the Finance Act, 1981.
This was an additional burden on the news papers, which could not survive and meet the
expenses.
The petitioned filed a writ petition contending that the abnormal increase in the customs duty
was showing the Central Government’s attitude of curbing the press and was against the spirit
of Article 19(1)(a).
The SC held that-
a) The freedom of speech and expression include press.
b) The news paper industry enjoys two fundamental rights viz. the freedom of speech
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) and the freedom to carry on any profession, etc.
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g). There can be no tax on the letter right. There can be no
tax on the letter right. Imposing additional burden by way of taxes is the transgress into the
field of freedom of expression and stifles that freedom, and it becomes unconstitutional.
c) The taxes imposed can not be said to be the reasonable restrictions imposed for the public
purpose under Article 19 (2). It is clear invasion against the press.
State of U.P. Vs. Kaushaliya, AIR 1964 SCR
(4)1002 416
A prostitute is arrested by the police. She argues
that she has right to practise prostitution which is
guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (e) [to reside and
settle in any part of the territory of India].
The SC held that-
The prostitution is prohibited by the criminal law
and for the protection of morality of the society.
Hence prostitution can not invoke Article 19 (1)
(g).
• The police department and the telephone department tapped
telephones of some of influential persons.
• One voluntary organisation filed writ petition contending that
the act of tapping would be against ‘right to privacy’ of citizens,
and this right to privacy included in ‘right of life and protection’.
• The Union government supported the tappings under Section 5
of the Telegraph Act, 1885. (Power for Government to take
possession of licensed telegraphs and to order interception of
messages.)
• The Supreme Court gave judgement admitting the contentions
of the petitioner and treated petition as PIL.
Facets of Speech and Expression under Article 19
(1) (a)
Right to circulate

Right to criticise

Right to receive information

Right to expression beyond national boundaries

Right of the press to conduct interviews

Reporting court proceedings

Reporting legislative proceedings

Right to advertise (commercial speech)

Right to rebuttal

Compelled speech
Right to circulate
• Right to free speech and expression includes the right not only to
publish but also to circulate information and opinion.
• In Sakal Paper v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 the Supreme Court
held that the State could not make any laws which directly affected
the circulation of a newspaper for that would amount to a violation
of the freedom of speech.
• In Bennett Coleman & Co. Vs. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106, the
SC held that newspapers should be left free to determine their pages
and their circulation. This case arose out of a constitutional challenge
to the validity of the Newspaper (Price and page) Act, 1956 which
empowered the government to regulate the allocation of space for
advertisement matter.
• In LIC Vs. Manubhai Shah, AIR 1992 SCC 637 the SC held(reiterated)
that the ‘freedom of speech and expression’ must be broadly
constructed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by word
or mouth or in writing or through audio visual media.
Right to criticise
• For a healthy democracy
• In, Romesh Thappar Vs. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124, the SC noted that criticism of the
government was not to be regarded as a ground for restricting the freedom of speech or
expression. Free political discussion= public education.
• In a leading American case, Terminiello V. Chicago, (1948) 93 L Ed 1131, the rational behind
the freedom of speech and expression was explained [A] function of free speech under our
system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it
induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even
stirs the people to anger.
• Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955., arose out of a constitutional
challenge to Sections 124-A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 which penalise attempts
to excite disaffection towards the government by words or in writing and publications which
may disturb public tranquillity(calmness). The SC dismissed the challenge but clarified that
criticism of public measures or comment on government action, however strongly worded,
would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression.
Right to receive information
The freedom of speech and expression comprises not only the right to express, publish and
propagate information through circulation but also to receive information.

Fundamental values of Democracy

Awareness, Information knowledge

Information is power So it is imperative to seek


The media thus plays a crucial role in building an inclusive information society
by its absolute reach and opinion building power.
As Justice P.B.Sawant observed ‘With the right to information on their
side, the media need no longer depend on questionable sources of
information, and can use RTI Act to access credible and authentic
information’.
Media have three important functions to play in the context of RTI:
a) Inform and educate the people about RTI
b) To generate debate
c) To disseminate a democratic culture of tolerance towards alternative
points of view
What is Right to Information?
• The Right to Information refers to the right of every citizen to
access information held by or under the control of public
authorities

• The premise is that all activity taken up in the public domain


should be made known to the public in whose name the activity
is taken up

• A direct relationship exists between right to information, an


informed citizenry and good governance; RTI provides citizens the
opportunity of being informed of what government does for
them, why and how it does it

• The media plays a significant role especially in empowering


citizens, informing them and playing a catalytic role in providing a
voice to the ‘Voiceless’
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
AND THE ROLE OF MEDIA
Objectives
• The role of the media in strengthening the demand side of the
Right to Information Regime in India. In other words, to explain
the importance of the media in achieving the objectives of the
Right to Information Act, 2005
• To clarify the media’s role in building an inclusive information
society
• To present significant steps that the media has taken in promoting
the right to information regime around the world. This will also
include certain prominent media reports
Media & Good Governance
Media promotes Good Governance through:
• Citizenship Development: For citizens to be active in public affairs and participate in efforts
that promote good governance.

• Policy Formulation and Advocacy: Influencing the decisions of legislators, elected


representatives and public administrators

• Watchdog role: Playing a crucial role in evaluating the policies and actions of the
Government

• Welfare Service Delivery: Providing necessary institutional basis for service delivery.

• Impacting Electoral Politics: Impacting the outcomes of the electoral process

• Reform and Social Change: Serve as an instrument for reform and social change

• Collective Action: Facilitating peoples collective action in attaining sustainable socio-


economic outcomes
What is Right to Information?

Core Principles
Principle 1 - Maximum proactive disclosure
Principle 2 - Obligation to publish
Principle 3 - Promotion of open government
Principle 4 - Limited scope of exemptions
Principle 5 - Processes to facilitate access
Principle 6 - Reasonable costs
Principle 7 - Disclosure takes precedence
Right to expression beyond national boundaries
The question whether an Indian citizen’s right to freedom
of speech and expression extends beyond the
geographical limits of India was considered by the SC in
Menaka Gandhi vs. UOI, AIR 1978 SCC 248.
The case concerned a challenge to Section 10(3)(c) of the
of the Passport Act, 1967 which permitted a passport to
be impounded ‘in the interest of the general public’.
One aspect of the challenge was that the The court considered whether Article 19 (1)(a)
provision infringed Article 19(1)(a) since it was confined to Indian territory, and whether
precluded the petitioner from exercising her such right could be said to have been violated
right to free speech and expression abroad. in the present case.

The court held that the freedom of speech and expression was not
confined to national boundaries and a citizen had the right to exercise
that right abroad.
Right of the press to conduct interviews
Constitutional restrictions on the freedom of
speech and expression
• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Security of the state
• Friendly relations with foreign States
• Public order
• Decency and morality
• Contempt of court
• Defamation
• Incitement to an offence
1. Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Chinese demanded a separate north east in 1960.
• Strong demand by Master Tara Singh for a separate Sikh
homeland.
• The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) had called for an entity
separate from India called Dravida Nadu comprising Madras,
Mysore, Kerala and Andhra.
The amendment enabled the enactment of laws such as the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 and the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 which made punishable the act or words of
any individual or association intending or supporting ‘the giving up
of any part of the territory of India or the secession’ of the same.
2. Security of the State and Public order
• In State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329
while interpreting Sction 4(1)(a) of the Press
(Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 dealing with words,
signs or visible representation which incite or
encourage or tend to incite or encourage the
commission of any speech or expression which
incites or encourage the commission of violent
crimes such as murder, undermines the security of
the State and falls within the ambit of Article 19 (2).
Judicial recognition of the right to
information
• It was a creative interpretation of Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution that the SC carved out a
fundamental right to information as being implicit
in the right to free speech and expression.
• This right is of special importance to the media
whose lifeline is information and whose lifeline is
information and whose business it is to
communicate information to the electorate so that
the latter may make informed choices.
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras,AIR 1950
SC 124
• The petitioner challenged an order issued by the then
Government of Madras u/s 9(1-A) of the Madras
Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 imposing a ban on
the circulation of the petitioner’s journal Cross Roads.
• The order was struck down as being violative of the right to
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• The SC held that freedom of speech and of the press lay at
the foundation of all democratic organisations.
• Without free political discussion, public education, and
proper functioning of the Government is impossible.
The campaign for a legislation on the right to
information
• Laws on the right to information were first enacted in the
Scandinavian countries and in the USA in the 1960s thereafter, in
other countries including Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
• In India, some states such as Goa, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, MP,
Karnataka, Maharastra, Delhi, and Assam introduced laws on the
subject between the mid-1990s and 2003.
• The Central Government finally followed suit and came out with
a draft bill called the Freedom of Information Bill,2000 which
was passed by Parliament in December 2002.
• The freedom of Information Act,2002 was later substituted by
the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Salient features of the Right to Information
Act, 2005
• Maintenance of records
Sec 2(i) All the public authorities are under an obligation to maintain their
records.
Sec 4(1)(b) All public authorities are required to publish specified
information about their functioning within a period of 120 days from the
enactment of the Act.
• Duty to publish
Section- 4 (2): It shall be a constant endeavour of every Public Authority
to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section- 4 to provide as much information suo motu to the
public at regular intervals through various means of communications,
including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of
this Act to obtain information.
• Establishment of Information Commission
Sec.12 constitution of Central Information
Commission.
Sec.15 constitution of State Information
Commission
The United Nations1948 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference,
and impart information and ideas through any
media regardless of frontiers"
INTERPRETATION OF MEDIA FREEDOM
• Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and
expression through mediums including various electronic media and published materials
. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an over reaching
state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.
• With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which
materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on 
classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise
protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the 
national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or 
freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest.
• The United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has
the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media
regardless of frontiers"
• This philosophy is usually accompanied by legislation ensuring various degrees of
freedom of scientific research (known as scientific freedom), publishing, press and
printing the depth to which these laws are entrenched in a country's legal system can go
as far down as its constitution. The concept of freedom of speech is often covered by
the same laws as freedom of the press, thereby giving equal treatment to spoken and
published expression.
ISSUES OF PRIVACY, MEDIA AND THE LAW

Article 21 assures the right to live with human dignity, free


from exploitation. The state is under a constitutional obligation
to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any
person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of
the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a
strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. Both the
Central Government and the State Government are therefore
bound to ensure observance of the various social welfare and
labour laws enacted by Parliament for the purpose of securing
to the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance
with the directive principles of the state policy.
The meaning of the word life includes the right to live in fair and reasonable conditions,
right to rehabilitation after release, right to live hood by legal means and decent
environment. The expanded scope of Article 21 has been explained by the Apex Court in
the case of Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and the Apex Court itself provided the list of
some of the rights covered under Article 21 on the basis of earlier pronouncements and
some of them are listed below:
(1) The right to go abroad.
(2) The right to privacy.
(3) The right against solitary confinement.
(4) The right against hand cuffing.
(5) The right against delayed execution.
(6) The right to shelter.
(7) The right against custodial death.
(8) The right against public hanging.
(9) Doctors assistance
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [W.P.(Crl).No.
167 of 2012]
In the light of a series of arrests made under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000,
this writ petition was filed in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking to
strike down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
It is argued that the phraseology of Section 66A is so wide, vague and incapable of being judged on
objective standards that it is susceptible to wanton abuse. Further, the terms ‘offensive’,
‘menacing’, ‘annoyance’, ‘inconvenience’, ‘danger’, ‘obstruction’ and ‘insult’ have not been defined
in the IT Act, General Clauses Act or any other legislation. It has been held in the case of A K Roy v.
Union of India that the impossibility of framing a definition with mathematical precision does not
justify the use of vague expressions. In the said case, a provision of the National Security Act was
held to be violative (due to being capable of wanton abuse) of the Fundamental Right to Life and
Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This dicta of the Court is squarely
attracted in the present case, says the Petitioner.
Citing the arrests made under Section 66A, the Petitioner submits that the wide legislative
language of the Section severely disincentivizes citizens from exercising their Constitutionally
protected right to free speech for fear of frivolous prosecution (the ‘chilling effect’), which violates
the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Furthermore, whether or not Section 66A meets the test of ‘reasonableness’ laid down under
Article 19(2), it is nonetheless violative of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 of the Constitution.

You might also like