Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. The party-in-person, a practising Advocate, seeks a declaration that the action of the State in not taking steps to stop the broadcasting of the news item “Akbaruddin Owaisi Hate Speech at Adilabad and Nizamabad” is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner states that fiery speeches were addressed by Sri Akbaruddin Owaisi, MLA, at Nirmal in Adilabad on 24.12.2012 and thereafter, at Nizamabad, which are being broadcast repeatedly and being debated/discussed, thereby hurting the sentiments of both the communities and were likely to lead to a flare up. He apprehends that it would be difficult to control law and order. He refers to the fact that criminal proceedings have already been launched against Sri Akbaruddin Owaisi, MLA, at Nizamabad, Hyderabad and various other places, and states that his grievance is only with regard to the action of the media in repeatedly disseminating the contents of the alleged speeches of the MLA without realizing that it may lead to a law and order problem and incite the religious sentiments of both communities. He states that there is a threat to peace and likelihood of communal violence, which may ultimately affect the right to life.

3. The Preamble to the Constitution of India demonstrates that the endeavour of our founding fathers was to secure to all the citizens of this country, amongst other ideals, the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. This quest for liberty of thought and expression translated into Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which protects the right of the citizen to freedom of speech and expression. However, this right is not absolute but is subject to the safeguards contained in Article 19(2). Thereby, the State is empowered, by law, to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right 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. The party-in-person states that the alleged speeches of Sri Akbaruddin Owaisi, MLA, have an adverse effect upon public order and may also result in incitement to commit offences. He therefore asserts that the State should curb the press and the media from giving publicity to the same.

4. We are however not persuaded to agree. It must be remembered that freedom of speech and consequently, the freedom of the press, is interminably woven into the fabric of our social and democratic polity and any move to impose a restraint on the exercise of this right must be rigorously tried and tested.

5. The right to freedom of speech and expression is recognized internationally as a human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsand also under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that to the effect that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference and everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. Article 19 goes on to state that the exercise of this right carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions for respecting the rights and reputations of others or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals.

6. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides thus: “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This amendment is absolute in terms and brooks for no exception to the exercise of this right. However, the American Courts developed the rule of ‘clear and present danger’ to cut down the ambit of th