Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"It is reasonable to think that the makers of the Constitution considered the word "restriction" to be sufficiently wide to save laws 'inconsistent' with Art. 19(1), or "taking away the rights' conferred by the (1) [1960] 2 S. C. R. 375.
962

Article, provided this inconsistency or taking away was reasonable in the interests of the different matters mentioned in the clause. There can be no doubt therefore that they intended the word restriction' to include cases of 'prohibition' also. The contention that a law prohibiting the exercise of a fundamental right is in no case saved, cannot therefore be accepted."