Article 19: speech and the other freedoms
Free speech, the press, trade and the reasonable restrictions on them.
15 of the 54 judgments in our library on this topic: the ones other judgments here cite most, oldest first.
0 of 15 read
Start: Romesh Thappar v. State of MadrasYour progress is kept in this browser. Sign in to keep it on every device and count it in your reading streak.
26 May 1950 · 6 judges · cited by 5 judgments in this library
Romesh Thappar v. State of MadrasThe Court held Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 wholly void under Article 19(2) and quashed the Madras Government's ban on the entry and circulation of the weekly Cross Roads.
On this path for: Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) (clause (2) as originally enacted), Constitution; Freedom of speech and expression
8 November 1950 · 5 judges · cited by 3 judgments in this library
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya PradeshThe Court held void the Central Provinces and Berar law allowing a total ban on bidi manufacture during the agricultural season, because the prohibition was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) on the right in Article 19(1)(g).
On this path for: Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6), Constitution
25 May 1951 · 5 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
State of Bombay v. F.N. BalsaraThe Court upheld the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 as within provincial competence over intoxicating liquors, striking down only its bans on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol, on 'commending' intoxicants and certain other severable provisions.
On this path for: Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(f), 19(2) and 19(5), Constitution
15 March 1954 · 8 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
M.P. Sharma v. Satish ChandraSearch and seizure of documents under a warrant issued under Sections 94 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not compelled testimony under Article 20(3) and does not violate Article 19(1)(f); the petitions were dismissed.
On this path for: Article 19(1)(f), Constitution
30 August 1962 · 6 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Rev. Sidhajbhai Sabhai v. State of BombayGovernment orders reserving 80% of seats in a Christian minority's teacher training college for government-nominated teachers, enforced by threats to withhold grant and recognition, infringed the absolute right of minorities under Article 30(1).
On this path for: Article 19(1)(f) and (g), Constitution
18 December 1962 · 6 judges · cited by 6 judgments in this library
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshThe Court struck down the provision for night-time domiciliary visits in the U.P. Police Regulations as violating personal liberty under Article 21, but held that the other forms of police surveillance infringed no fundamental right.
On this path for: Article 19(1)(d), Constitution
10 February 1970 · 11 judges · cited by 4 judgments in this library
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of IndiaThe majority struck down the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969, which nationalised 14 banks, for hostile discrimination, unreasonable restriction on business and failure to provide compensation under Article 31(2) on relevant principles.
On this path for: Article 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 19(5) and 19(6), Constitution
25 January 1978 · 7 judges · cited by 17 judgments in this library
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of IndiaProcedure under Article 21 must be right, just and fair, not arbitrary; Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive; a hearing is implied in Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, which was held valid.
On this path for: Article 19(1)(a) and (g), Constitution
30 August 1978 · 5 judges · cited by 3 judgments in this library
Sunil Batra v. Delhi AdministrationReading down Sections 30(2) and 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894, the Court held that a prisoner under sentence of death cannot be kept in solitary confinement and that bar fetters may be imposed only on recorded, individual safety grounds.
On this path for: Article 19, Constitution
9 May 1980 · 5 judges · cited by 4 judgments in this library
Bachan Singh v. State of PunjabBy 4:1, the Court upheld the death penalty for murder under Section 302 IPC and the sentencing procedure in Section 354(3) CrPC, holding that death may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
On this path for: Article 19, Constitution
31 July 1980 · 5 judges · cited by 2 judgments in this library
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of IndiaThe Court struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, holding that a limited amending power, judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are parts of the basic structure.
On this path for: Article 19, Constitution
18 February 1992 · 5 judges · cited by 4 judgments in this library
Kihoto Hollohan v. ZachillhuThe majority upheld the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) except Paragraph 7, which was invalid for want of ratification and severable; Speakers' disqualification decisions are subject to limited judicial review.
On this path for: Article 191(2), Constitution
13 August 1997 · 3 judges · cited by 3 judgments in this library
Vishaka v. State of RajasthanIn the absence of legislation, the Court laid down binding guidelines and norms to prevent sexual harassment of women at all work places, reading international conventions such as CEDAW into Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21.
On this path for: Article 19(1)(g), Constitution
31 October 2002 · 11 judges · cited by 4 judgments in this library
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of KarnatakaAn eleven judge Bench held that all citizens may establish and administer educational institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, minorities also under Article 30, with minority status judged State-wise; the Unni Krishnan scheme was held unconstitutional.
On this path for: Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6), Constitution
24 August 2017 · 9 judges · cited by 4 judgments in this library
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of IndiaThe right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and of the Part III freedoms; M P Sharma and Kharak Singh are overruled on that point.
On this path for: Article 19, Constitution
Test yourself: 170 practice questions on landmark judgments, with explanations.