Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Kaushal Kishor – Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 113 of 2016
Decided On : 29-03-2017
Article 19(1)(a) - Balancing of Rights - The court discussed the balancing of the right under Article 19(1)(a) and the right under Article 21, and whether the language of Article 19(2) singularly controls the right under Article 19(1)(a) or if the right under Article 21 also has an impact on it.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the need to balance the right under Article 19(1)(a) and the right under Article 21, and the question of criminal prosecution on the ground of decency or morality under Article 19(2.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the arguments presented by the learned senior counsels and the Attorney General, and expressed the intention to further deliberate on the propositions regarding the balancing of preferential rights.
Issues: The core issue was whether the right under Article 19(1)(a) is controlled singularly by the language of Article 19(2) or if the right under Article 21 would also have an impact on it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the inherent contours of the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the need to consider the impact of both Article 19(2) and Article 21 on this right.
Final Decision: The matter was listed for final hearing on a later date.
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 boundless.
Let the matter be listed on 20.4.2017 for final hearing.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
