Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. All laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with Articles 14 to 35, to the extent of such inconsistency, are void under Article 13. Under Article 19(1)(a) "all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression". As the Article stood on 11-6-50 this freedom was subject to the right of the State to make any law relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offends against decency or morality or which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State. The Article was amended on 18-6-1951, that is, after the commission of the alleged offence by the applicant. The effect of the amendment is that the freedom of speech and expression is subject to the right of the State to make any law which imposes "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right "in the interests of the security of the State or public order" etc. It is further laid down in the amendment that no law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution which is consistent with Article 19 as amended shall be deemed to be void or ever to have become void on the ground only that being a law which takes away or abridges the freedom of speech and expression, its operation was not saved by Clause (2) of the Article as originally enacted. In other words, the amendment of Article 19 has been given retrospective effect. Article 14 enjoins upon the State not to deny any person "the equal protection of the laws". Article 20 is to the effect that "no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence".

The preamble of the Act was amended by the Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 23 of 1932) and now the object of the Act is stated to be "to provide for the better control of the press". Thus the express object of the Act has nothing to do with the security of the State. Of course, security of the State would be one of the objects to be achieved by the Act, but it would be only one of the objects and there would be several other objects to be achieved by the Act. The law that is saved by Article 19(2) is one that relates exclusively, or at least principally, to any of the matters specified therein. The very object behind specifying the matters is that the law must deal exclusively or principally with, those matters. Had the framers of the Constitution intended to save any general law which did not specifically deal with any of the matters, they would not have specified the matters. The impugned Act cannot possibly be said to relate to any matter which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State. Nor is keeping a press or publishing newspapers and periodicals such a matter. Even if it be said that the object behind the impugned provisions was to control matters which may undermine the security of, or tend to overthrow, the State, they cannot be said to relate to such matters. They do not relate any more to matters which undermine the security of, or tend to overthrow, the State than to matters which offend against decency or morality or to libel, slander and contempt of court, or as a matter of fact to any other matter which can be spoken or expressed.

10. Before I come to the question of the effect of the amendment of Article 19, I would deal with the question whether that amendment has the retrospective effect which the learned Advocate-General wants to be given to it. I have found that on 11-6-1950 the applicant did not violate any law in force by keeping the news sheets in his possession. Under Article 20, he cannot be convicted. The bar on his conviction is absolute. There is no way of getting over it. If the impugned provisions could be said to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(a) "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,"