Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(a) – Freedom and speech of expression – One cannot interfere with the freedom of others – Minimum inconvenience to the public at large .
Every citizen has got a right to express his view on any manner, subject of course to other laws that are in force. When meetings are held in a small junction , more particularly in evenings , it will result in serious hardship to the pubic at large. It will cause inconvenience to the pedestrians and the residents of that area and traffic jam apart from causing noise pollution. When a person enjoys a right conferred under Art.19(1)(a) he must enjoy the same with very minimum inconvenience to the public at large. [New Road Brothers vs Commissioner of Police. 1999(2) KLT 59= AIR 1999Ker 262. A.S.Venkitachala Moorthy (J)]
Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech – Right to criticize the judgment cannot be exercised with malice or by attempting to impair administration of justice.
Under the cover of freedom of speech and expression the proceedings and orders of the Court and deliberately paint an absolutely wrong and incomplete picture which has the tendency to scandalize the Court and bring it into disrepute or ridicule . The right of exercising ,in good faith in private or public , a judgment of the Court canoe be exercised, with malice or by attempting to impair the administration of justice. An offence scandalizing the Court is per se is one such qualification, since that offence exists to protect the administration of justice and is reasonably justified and necessary in a democratic society. [Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 3345. Dr.A.S.Anand (CJ) , S.P.Barucha (J) & B.N.Kirpal(J)]
Constitution of India - Art. 19(1)(a) - Freedom of speech - Seeking interview with prisoners - Refusal by jail authorities - amounts to deprivation of citizens fundamental right - Prisons Act, 1894 - Cinematograph Act, 1952
Petitioner journalist and videographer seeking interview with condemned prisoners. Refusal by Jail authorities will amount to deprivation of citizens fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. [M.Hasan and another vs Government of Andhra Pradesh. AIR 1998 A.P.35 = 1997 (6) Andh LT 209 = 1998(1) Ree Cri R 255 = 1997(6) Andh LD 826. N.Y.Hanumanthappa and Avinash Somakant Bhate {JJ}]
Constitution of India – Art.226 - Suo motu proceedings initiated against the painter and daily newspaper for reproduction of pictures in its Daily – Obscene .
Pictures exhibited were pornographic and depicted naked human couple, which was obscene. Times of India reproduced it. Picture kep in an art gallery and a photograph depicted in a newspaper , having wide circulation , which reaches a common house. In the former class of cases, ordinarily, persons interested in art visit the place and appreciate the work but in the later class of cases, it reaches common mass who may or may not be able to perceive art and may not appreciate the message of an artist. [ Jagdhishchandra.L.Oza vs State of Gujarat. AIR 1999 Guj 314. C.K.Thakker (Ag.CJ) & M.C.Patel (J)]