Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. According to Sri Mohan Kumaramangalam, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned rule cannot be saved unless it is held that it imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. On behalf of the State, the contention was that the restriction in question is a reasonable restriction imposed in the interest of public order and decency. That being so, it is unnecessary to consider the remaining parts of Clause (2) of Art. 19.

28. We fail to see how any question of decency arises in these cases. The expression "decency" in Art. 19(2) is not used in the sense of correct behaviour. What Art. 19(2) means, is that it is competent for the State to make any law in the interest of "decency" though such a law may impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. What can be prohibited under that provision is indecent speech and expression. We are unable to agree with the learned Advocate-General that every inappropriate speech or expression is in law an incident one. The term "decency" in the context means, avoidance of obscene language and gestures.

29. Now turning our attention to the passage objected to in the pamphlet "saga of our struggle," we do not think that it could be said with any justification that that passage is an indecent one. Whether one could object to the propriety of the statements contained therein or not, it cannot be said that those statements are indecent statements. Even if we accept the contention of the learned Advocate-General that the term "decency" found in Art. 19(2) includes also inappropriate statements, rule 7(1) is wide enough to bring within its net all statements of facts and expressions of opinion whether decent or not. Hence the entire rule must be held to be violative of Art. 19(1)(a) as it is not possible to dissect the rule and remove the invalid portion from the valid portion.