Freedoms and Restrictions under Art.19

The six freedoms of citizens, the grounds on which each can be restricted, and the cases on speech, sedition, the internet and the anthem

In one minute

Article 19(1) gives every citizen six freedoms. Clauses (2) to (6) let the State limit each one, but only by a law, only on grounds listed for that freedom, and only if the limit is reasonable.

Exams ask for the grounds in clause (2), the cases on speech and sedition, and the tests that courts use to judge a restriction. Do not borrow a ground from one clause to justify a limit under another.

Exam focus

Frequency: Rarely asked
Usually asked as: Long answer (10 to 15 marks)

Legal provision

Article 19(1): all citizens have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression, (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms, (c) to form associations or unions or co-operative societies, (d) to move freely throughout India, (e) to reside and settle in any part of India, and (g) to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Article 19(2): reasonable restrictions on speech in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, 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.
Article 19(3): reasonable restrictions on assembly in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order.
Article 19(4): reasonable restrictions on association in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order or morality.
Article 19(5): reasonable restrictions on movement and residence in the interests of the general public or for the protection of any Scheduled Tribe.
Article 19(6): reasonable restrictions on trade and profession in the interests of the general public. A law may prescribe professional or technical qualifications. A law may also let the State, or a State-owned corporation, carry on a trade, business, industry or service, wholly or partly excluding citizens.
Amendments: clauses (2) and (6) were substituted by the First Amendment (in force from 18 June 1951). "Sovereignty and integrity of India" was added to clauses (2) to (4) by the 16th Amendment (5 October 1963). The 44th Amendment omitted sub-clause (f), the right to property (20 June 1979). The 97th Amendment added "co-operative societies" (8 February 2012).

Meaning and definition

Article 19 follows one pattern. Clause (1) gives a freedom. A later clause lets the State limit it. Each limit must be a reasonable restriction, made by a law, and tied to the grounds listed for that freedom. The Article protects only citizens. Property is no longer a Fundamental Right, so only six freedoms remain in clause (1).

Each freedom and its own restriction clauseHow to read this: start at the top box. Each green box is a freedom in Article 19(1). The note under it names the clause that limits it.

Article 19(1): freedoms of citizens
- (a) Speech and expressionlimited by clause (2)
- (b) Peaceable assemblylimited by clause (3)
- (c) Associationlimited by clause (4)
- (d) Movement and (e) residenceboth limited by clause (5)
- (g) Profession, trade or businesslimited by clause (6)

Detailed explanation

Step 1: what makes a restriction reasonable

The Constitution does not define "reasonable". In Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1950), a ban on making bidis in certain villages during the farming season was struck down. The Court held that a restriction must not be arbitrary or go beyond what the public interest needs. A blanket ban covered even people with no link to farm labour. Courts, not the legislature alone, decide whether a restriction is reasonable.

Modern cases add proportionality. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Court set a four-stage test: a legitimate goal, a rational connection, necessity and balancing. A restriction that fails any stage is unreasonable.

Step 2: freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(1)(a)

Speech includes the press, art, cinema and other media. As first enacted, clause (2) did not list public order. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Madras banned the weekly "Cross Roads" under a public safety law. By 5:1, the Court struck the ban down. Fazl Ali, J. dissented. A limit for public order alone was outside the original clause (2). Parliament answered with the First Amendment, which added public order, friendly relations with foreign States and incitement to an offence.

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, a five-Judge Bench upheld section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, the offence of sedition, and section 505. It read section 124A narrowly. It punishes only acts with an intention or tendency to create disorder, or incitement to violence. Strong criticism of the Government is not sedition. This is the technique of reading down.

Example. A speaker at a rally says the ruling party has failed the poor and should be voted out. That is protected criticism. A speaker who calls on the crowd to burn a police station is inciting violence, and the law can punish it.

Present position: on 11 May 2022, in S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, the Supreme Court kept all pending proceedings under section 124A in abeyance. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 has no offence called sedition. Its section 152 punishes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, and that section is under challenge. Kedar Nath Singh is still cited for the rule that only incitement to violence or public disorder can be punished.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, two Judges struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety (para 119). The section punished online messages that were "grossly offensive" or caused annoyance. It was void for vagueness and overbroad, and it had a chilling effect on speech. The Court separated discussion, advocacy and incitement. Only incitement can be restricted, and it must have a close link to a ground in clause (2). The Court upheld section 69A, the power to block websites, and the 2009 Blocking Rules. It read down section 79(3)(b) and struck down section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act.

In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, mobile, internet and landline services were shut in Jammu and Kashmir from 4 August 2019, and orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure limited movement and assembly. The Court held that speech and trade over the internet are protected by Article 19(1)(a) and (g). It did not decide whether access to the internet is itself a Fundamental Right. An order suspending the internet indefinitely is impermissible. Orders must be published, reasoned, temporary and open to judicial review.

In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, three schoolchildren from Jehovah's Witnesses stood respectfully during the National Anthem but did not sing, because of their faith. They were expelled under school circulars. The Court held that no law makes anyone sing. Standing in respectful silence shows respect. The expulsion breached Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1), and the children were to be re-admitted.

Step 3: assembly, association, movement, residence and profession

Assembly, 19(1)(b): the gathering must be peaceable and without arms. A violent or armed gathering is not protected. Clause (3) allows limits for the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order.
Association, 19(1)(c): the right is to form an association, union or co-operative society. In All India Bank Employees' Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1961), the Court held that it does not include a right to strike. Clause (4) allows limits for sovereignty and integrity, public order or morality.
Movement and residence, 19(1)(d) and (e): clause (5) allows limits in the interests of the general public or to protect a Scheduled Tribe.
Profession and trade, 19(1)(g): clause (6) allows limits in the interests of the general public. It also allows qualification rules and State monopolies.

Example. A State bans a peaceful march planned by a party and gives only a vague fear that "some disturbance might occur". A court asks if the ban is a proportionate response to a real public order concern. A vague apprehension alone will not meet the test.

Don't confuse: Article 19 and Article 21

Point	Article 19	Article 21
Who is protected	Citizens only	Every person
What it gives	Six named freedoms	Life and personal liberty
How it can be limited	Reasonable restrictions on the grounds listed in clauses (2) to (6)	By a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law

Inside Article 19. An Indian citizen is stopped from publishing a pamphlet. The question is whether the stop is a reasonable restriction on a ground in clause (2).

Just outside it. A foreign visitor is stopped from publishing the same pamphlet. Article 19 does not protect the visitor, because Article 19 covers citizens only. Article 21 still protects the visitor's life and liberty.

Common mistakes

Writing that all six freedoms share one list of grounds. Each clause has its own list.
Listing the right to property as a freedom in clause (1). Sub-clause (f) was omitted in 1979.
Saying Kedar Nath Singh struck down sedition. It upheld section 124A, read narrowly.
Saying the Court declared a Fundamental Right to the internet. Anuradha Bhasin protected speech and trade over the internet, not access as such.
Saying Romesh Thappar was unanimous. Fazl Ali, J. dissented.

Apply it

Problem

After a protest, a District Magistrate orders all internet services in a district stopped until further orders and bans every public meeting. A local newspaper, which relies on online news gathering, challenges the order. Is the order valid?

Issue. Do the shutdown and the ban meet Article 19(2), (3) and (6)?

Rule. A restriction must be reasonable and proportionate. An indefinite internet suspension is impermissible, and orders must be published and reasoned (Anuradha Bhasin).

Application. An order "until further orders" has no time limit. The ban on every meeting is wider than a real threat needs.

Conclusion. The order fails the proportionality test and is liable to be set aside. A shorter, reasoned and published order aimed at the actual danger could stand.

Leading case laws

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts. Madras banned the journal "Cross Roads" in the interest of public safety.

Principle. By 5:1, the ban was struck down. The original clause (2) did not allow limits for public order alone.

Why it matters. It led to the First Amendment.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
Facts. Kedar Nath Singh was charged under sections 124A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code for a public speech.

Principle. Section 124A is valid only for acts with an intention or tendency to create disorder, or incitement to violence.

Why it matters. It is the governing rule on sedition.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts. Writ petitions challenged section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Principle. Section 66A was struck down in its entirety as vague and overbroad. Only incitement can be restricted.

Why it matters. It separates discussion, advocacy and incitement.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
Facts. Internet and mobile services were shut in Jammu and Kashmir from 4 August 2019.

Principle. Speech and trade over the internet are protected. Restrictions must pass a four-stage proportionality test.

Why it matters. It limits indefinite shutdowns.
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)
Facts. Three children stood but did not sing the National Anthem and were expelled.

Principle. No law requires singing. The expulsion breached Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1).

Why it matters. The right to speech includes the right to remain silent.

How to write this answer in the exam

5-mark answer

List the six freedoms in Article 19(1).
State that each has its own restriction clause.
Give the grounds in clause (2).
Name one case, such as Romesh Thappar.

10-mark answer

Pattern of Article 19 and citizen-only scope.
Meaning of reasonable restriction and proportionality.
Clause (2) grounds and the First Amendment, with Romesh Thappar.
Sedition: Kedar Nath Singh and the present position.
Shreya Singhal and Anuradha Bhasin.
Clauses (3) to (6) in brief; conclusion.

Key points to remember

Six freedoms, citizens only. Property (f) left Part III in 1979.
Each freedom has its own restriction clause: (2), (3), (4), (5), (6).
Romesh Thappar (1950): public order was not in the original clause (2). The First Amendment added it.
The 16th Amendment (1963) added sovereignty and integrity of India.
Kedar Nath Singh (1962): sedition is valid only with incitement to violence or tendency to disorder.
Shreya Singhal (2015): section 66A struck down. Only incitement can be restricted.
Anuradha Bhasin (2020): speech and trade over the internet are protected. Indefinite shutdown is impermissible.
Bijoe Emmanuel (1986): standing in respectful silence is enough.

Quick self-test

1. Which clause of Article 19 restricts the freedom to assemble?

Clause (3), on the grounds of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order.

2. What did Kedar Nath Singh decide about section 124A?

It is valid, but only for acts with an intention or tendency to create disorder, or incitement to violence.

3. Why is Article 19 different from Article 21 in who it protects?

Article 19 protects citizens only. Article 21 protects every person.