Fundamental Freedom

 Fundamental Freedom

Act 1951 , Incitement to serious and aggravated offence like , murder may be published as involving security of thr state. Incitement ti many other offence may be made punishable as affecting the public order. But there may still be some offence like bribery, forgery , cheating, etc ., having no public order espect.  and incitement to which could not be made punishable as an espect of public order.

8. Sovereignty and integrity of India

   This ground has been added as ground of restriction on the freedom of speech and expression by the constitution 16th ( Amendment Act ) 1963 . It is the primary duty of the government to maintain the sovereignty and integrity of the state. 

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY (article 19(1)(b) and 19(3)

Article 19(1)(b) guarantee to all citizen of India right "to assembly peacefully and without arms" . Under Article 19(3) , however the state can make law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right in the interest of public order , sovereignty and integrity of India . Article 19(1)(b) save existing Indian law regulating public meeting in the interest of public order if the restriction are responsible . Freedom of Assembly is subject to following restrictions 

 i. The assembly must be peaceful

 ii. It must be unarmed

 iii. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed under clause 3 of article 19.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the supreme court ruled that the right to peaceful assembly was an inherent and natural part of an republican government and that the two right are related.

Right to assembly is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restriction under clause (3) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the India or public order. The restriction on the ground " the sovereignty and integrity of India was inserted by the constitution (16th Amendment Act) 1963

In Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner ( AIR 1973 SC 87) , in India citizen had a right to hold meeting on public street before constitution , subject to the control of appropriate authority regarding the time and place of the meeting na d consideration of the public order. A rule banning holding of public meeting in public street without public permission .

FREEDOM TO FORM ASSOCIATION

(Article 19(1)(c) 

Article 19(1)(c) guarantee to all citizen of india right " to form association and union" under clause (4) of article however the state may by law impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public or morality or sovereignty and integrity of india.

 The right to form association is the very lifeblood of democracy. Without such a right political parties can not be formed and without such parties a democratic form of government , specially that of the parliamentary type can be run properly. The right to form an association necessarily implies that a person is free to refuse to be a member of an association if he so desire.

The supreme court in State of Madras v. V.G Rao ( AIR 1952 SC 196) , interpreting the scope of the right held that , " thr right to form association or union or unions has such wide and varied scope for it exercise and its curtailment is faught with such potential reaction in the religious, political and economic field .

The right to form association or union includes association for any lawful purposes and government servant are not excluded from this protection at times recognition of an association by the government may effect the right to form an association e.g., if the  government were to prohibit its servant from being a member of an association become vitaly linkes up with government recognition. For without recognition the right to form an association become illusary. In such a situation Article 19(1)(c) would control the power of government to recognise association

In  O.K Ghosh v. E.X Joseph ( AIR 1963 SC 812) , the supreme court invalidated a rule which provide that no government could join or continue to be a member of any service association which the government didn't recognise or in respect of which recognition has been refused or withdrawn by it . The court held that the rule imposed a restriction on the undoubted right of government servant under Article 19(1)(c) . The  rule in question was neither reasonable nor in the interest of public order under article 19(4).

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

Article 19(1)(d)

Article 19 (1)(d) guarantee to all citizen of India the right " to move freely throughout the territory of india" According to Article 19(5) , however the  state can impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law in the interest of general public or for the protection of the interest of any schedule tribe.

In A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR1950 SC 27), it was held that the present sub clause of relate to general right of locomotion but the particular right of shifting or moving from one part of Indian territory to another , without any sort of discriminatory berries between one state and another or between different part of the same state.

The state nay under clause (5) of Article 19 impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of movement on two ground

i. in the interest of general public 

ii. for the protection of the interest of the schedule tribe 

The right of a citizen to move freely may also be restricted for the protection of the interest of the "scheduled tribe ". The object is to protect the original tribes which are mostly settled in Assam. 

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. kaushlya (AIR 1964 SC 416) , the supreme court held that the right to movement of may be restricted on the ground of public health and in the interest of public moral.

FREEDOM OF RESIDENCE

Article (1)(e)

Article 19(1)(e) guarantee to every citizen of India the right " to reside and settled in any part of the territory of  India " . The object in this clause is to remove internal barrier within India or any of its part. Under clause (5) of the article 19 reasonable restrictions nay be imposed by the state in this right in thr interest of thr general public or for the protection of thr interest of the schedule tribe.

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Singh (AIR 1967 SC 1179) , section 3(1) of Mp public security Act 1959 , empower the state government to issue an order requiring a person to reside or remain in such a place as might be specified in the order or to ask him to leave the place and go to another place selected by the authorities in the interest of security of the state or public order. The supreme court held that section 3(1) of the act impose unreasonable restrictions on the right guaranteed by article 19(1)(e) and therefore void.

The freedom of movement and residence may be curtailed and suspended during an emergency . In the case of foreigners it can be restricted under the Foreign Act 1964 . A foreigner may be ordered to remove himself from india.