Article 19 of Indian Constitution - Detailed Analysis

Article 19 of Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental freedoms such as speech, assembly, movement etc. to all citizens. Below is a detailed analysis of Article 19 of Constitution -

Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19 (1) (a)): According to Article 19 (1) all citizens have the right to freely express their opinions and ideas. It provides-

• Freedom of speech and Expression
• Freedom of Assembly
• Freedom to form Association or Unions or Co-operative Societies
• Freedom of Movement
• Freedom to reside and settle 
• Freedom of Profession, occupation, trade or business

It is important to note that Clause (f) was omitted by the 44th Amendment Act 1978. 

Article 19 (2) mentions the grounds on which state can impose restrictions which are as follows-

• Security of State
• Friendly relations with foreign States
• Public order
• Decency & morality
• Contempt of Court
• Defamation
• Incitement to offence
• Integrity and sovereignty of India

Freedom of Assembly (Article 19 (1) (b)): According to Article 19 (1) (b) citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. The following restrictions can be imposed in interest of-

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Public order

Freedom of Association (Article 19 (1) (c)): It guarantees that citizens can form-

• Associations
• Unions or 
• cooperative societies

Article 19 (4) allows for reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and morality.

Freedom of Movement (Article 19 (1) (d)): Article 19 (1) (d) of Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to move freely throughout India. Article 19 (5) allows for restrictions to protect Scheduled Tribes and interest of general public.

Freedom to Reside and Settle (Article 19 (1) (e)): According to Article 19 (1) (e) citizens have the right to reside and settle in any part of India.

Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade or Business: Article 19 provides that citizens can pursue any-

• Profession
• Occupation
• trade
• business

Reasonable Restrictions: The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on such rights to balance individual freedoms with broader interests of society. The Supreme Court has provided specific guidelines to determine reasonableness of restrictions which are as follows-

• There must be a reasonable relationship between restriction and objective it seeks to achieve
• Restrictions that aligns with principles of social justice and welfare are more likely to be deemed reasonable
• The interest of general public should be prioritised over individual biases
• Restrictions should not be excessive or beyond
• Each situation requires a unique assessment rather than a one-size-fits-all approach
• The Court evaluates reasonableness of restrictions and not the laws enables them

The judiciary has played an important role in interpreting and enforcing Article 19 of Indian Constitution. The following are some of important cases which reflect the significance of Article 19 of Indian Constitution - 

In Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi (1950) the Supreme Court invalidated a pre-censorship order requiring an English weekly to submit all content related to communal issues and Pakistan for scrutiny. The Court in this case held that it violated press freedom under Article 19 of Indian Constitution. Similarly in Indian Express vs Union of India (1985) the Court held that the press is an essential element of democracy under Article 19 of Constitution.

In Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997) an organization filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 and sought to enforce the fundamental rights of women at the workplace under Article 14, Article 15, Article 19 and Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

In Naveen Jindal vs Union of India (2004) the Court ruled that flying the National Flag respectfully is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary, Union of India (2012) found that police action against peaceful protesters led by Baba Ramdev violated the right to assemble peacefully and the freedom of speech and also the right to sleep under Article 19 of Indian Constitution.

In a landmark case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act and affirmed that arbitrary restrictions on free speech violate Article 19 (1) (a).

In Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018) the Supreme Court held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was unconstitutional as it criminalized consensual sexual acts between adults and also ruled that it was in violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, Article 15, Article 19 and Article 21.

In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020) a petition was filed challenging an internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir and contended that such suspensions require judicial review. The Court held that the “freedom to access the internet” is a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a).

The Supreme Court in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India (2020) held that a right to express concerns by a TV journalist during his show highlights that journalistic freedom is central to Article 19 (1) (a) protections especially regarding freedom of speech and expression.

In Mohammad Salimullah vs Union of India (2020) the Supreme Court held that the “right not to be deported” is a right available only to Indian citizens under Article 19 of Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court in Vinod Dua vs Union of India (2021) ruled that a prosecution of a journalist for alleged false claims was unlawful under Article 19 (1) (a) and observed that the statements did not incite violence or disrupt public peace.

In Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP (2023) the 5-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that the grounds for restricting freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (2) of Constitution are exhaustive and no further restrictions can be imposed even in situations where fundamental rights conflict with one another. The Court also held that Article 19 and Article 21 are enforceable against non-state entities.

Article 19 plays an important role in safeguarding personal liberties and democratic values. It outlines citizens with freedoms such as speech, assembly and movement etc. The Courts have interpreted these rights through various precedents has reinforced their importance.