ORDER

Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel (who was appointed as amicus curiae) being assisted by Mr. S.C. Sharma submitted that he requires some more time to think further and formulate the propositions with regard to the balancing of two preferential rights, namely, the right under Article 19(1)(a) and the right under Article 21.

2. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General submitted that there cannot be a criminal prosecution on the ground of decency or morality under Article 19(2). Needless to say, the question of criminal prosecution does not arise in this case.

3. The core issue, as is projected before us, is whether the right conferred under Article 19(1)(a) is to be controlled singularly by the language employed under Article 19(2) or also the other fundamental right, that is right under Article 21 would have any impact on it.

4. Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, who was present in Court, expressed his intention to assist the Court. It is submitted by Mr. Salve that Article 19(2) may be the only controlling provision but the right of freedom of speech and expression as enshrined and spelt out under Article 19(1)(a), has its own inherent contours and it is not boun