Reasonable restrictions

Topic: Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Remedies · NCERT: Class 9, Ch 6 "Democracy"; Class 11, Ch 2 "Freedom"; Class 11, Ch 2 "Rights in the Indian Constitution"

Meaning

Reasonable restrictions are limits the State may place on a fundamental right. The limit must be made by law, it must rest on one of the grounds written in the Constitution for that right, and the courts decide whether it is fair, needed and in proportion to the problem. This idea is how the Constitution balances one person's liberty against the safety and rights of others. It also lets judges strike down limits that go too far.

Explanation

How it works

• Each freedom in Art. 19(1) comes with its own clause that allows limits:

Freedom	Clause that allows limits
19(1)(a) Speech and expression	19(2)
19(1)(b) Peaceful assembly without arms	19(3)
19(1)(c) Associations, unions, cooperatives	19(4)
19(1)(d) Move freely / 19(1)(e) Live and settle anywhere	19(5)
19(1)(g) Any profession, trade or business	19(6)

• The grounds are not the same for every right. For example, "health" is not a ground for limiting speech under 19(2).
• The limit must come from a law. An executive order alone is not enough.
• In Bijoe Emmanuel (1986), no law forced students to sing the national anthem.
• A government circular alone could not limit their right.

The eight grounds in Art. 19(2)

Art. 19(2) lets the State make laws that put reasonable restrictions on free 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" [6].

1. Sovereignty and integrity of India
2. Security of the State
3. Friendly relations with foreign states
4. Public order (peace and safety in society)
5. Decency or morality
6. Contempt of court (disrespecting or obstructing courts; Arts. 129 and 215 let the Supreme Court and High Courts punish it)
7. Defamation (harming a person's reputation with false statements)
8. Incitement to an offence (urging people to commit a crime)

• The list is complete. In Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P. (2023), a Constitution Bench said courts cannot add new grounds by using some other right, such as Art. 21.

How courts test a limit

Courts follow the same steps each time:

1. Find the ground. Which 19(2) ground does the State rely on? If there is none, the limit fails.
2. Check the link. The limit must be closely linked to that ground.
3. Check proportion. Is the limit in proportion to the harm, or does it go too far?
4. Check clarity. Is the law clear, or so vague and broad that it catches lawful speech too?
5. Look at the real effect. Courts judge how much a rule actually hurts speech, not only what the rule says it is about (Bennett Coleman, 1973).

Worked examples from the NCERT exercises (Class 11, Ch 2):

• Making a documentary that criticises the government is protected.
• A ban on loudspeakers after 9 pm is usually a reasonable public order limit.

Three levels of speech (Shreya Singhal, 2015)

• Discussion is protected.
• Advocacy, even of an unpopular cause, is protected.
• Only incitement, which is closely linked to public disorder, can be curbed.

In the Constitution and practice

Why the grounds grew: the 1st Amendment, 1951

• The original Art. 19(2) was narrow. It allowed limits only for speech that undermined the security of the State or tended to overthrow it.
• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950): Madras banned the journal Cross Roads under a public safety law. The Court struck the ban down because "public safety" was not a ground in Art. 19(2).
• Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950): an order made the weekly Organiser show its material to the government before printing (pre-censorship). The Court struck it down for the same reason.
• The 1st Amendment, 1951 then:
• added public order, friendly relations with foreign States and incitement to an offence [5].
• added the word "reasonable" before "restrictions", so courts can test every limit.
• let the new clause apply to earlier laws [5].

16th Amendment, 1963

• It added "sovereignty and integrity of India" as a ground.
• It came after the 1962 war with China and during demands for secession.

Key cases

• Sakal Papers (1962): a rule fixing how many pages a newspaper could print at a given price was struck down. The State cannot curb the press to reach some other goal, such as helping smaller papers.
• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): sedition (IPC s.124A) was upheld but read down (the court narrowed its meaning so it stays constitutional). Only words that incite violence or tend to create public disorder are sedition.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): IT Act s.66A was struck down because it was vague, overbroad and not linked to any 19(2) ground. s.69A (blocking power) was upheld because it has safeguards. s.79 (safe harbour) was read down.
• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016): criminal defamation was upheld. Reputation is part of Art. 21, and "defamation" is itself a 19(2) ground. The offence is now BNS s.356.
• Amish Devgan (2020): to judge hate speech, courts look at content, the speaker's intent and the likely harm. Speakers with influence carry more responsibility.
• Kunal Kamra case (Bombay High Court, 2024): the fact-check-unit rule under the amended IT Rules, 2021 [7] was struck down as vague and as going beyond the 19(2) grounds (verify current).

Sedition and the BNS

• S.G. Vombatkere (May 2022): s.124A was put in abeyance (on hold).
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023) [3] came into force on 1 July 2024. Sedition is no longer an offence under it [4].
• BNS s.152 punishes acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. The punishment is life imprisonment, or prison for up to 7 years, plus a fine [2].

Don't confuse with

• Reasonable restriction vs. suspension of rights in an Emergency: a restriction is a limited, case-by-case limit that courts can review. During a national Emergency, Arts. 358 and 359 let Art. 19 rights be suspended or their enforcement be stopped.
• Grounds in 19(2) vs. grounds in 19(6): speech can be limited only on the eight listed grounds. The right to a profession or trade can be limited in the wider "interests of the general public".
• Restriction by law vs. restriction by executive order: a limit needs a law behind it. A circular alone could not limit the students' rights (Bijoe Emmanuel, 1986).
• Sedition (IPC s.124A) vs. BNS s.152: the old offence was read down to incitement to violence (Kedar Nath). s.152 does not use the word "sedition" and does not write the Kedar Nath limit into the law [2].

Prelims Hooks

• The 1st Amendment, 1951 added public order, friendly relations with foreign States, incitement to an offence, plus the word "reasonable". The 16th Amendment, 1963 added sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Trap: "security of the State" was in the original Art. 19(2). It was not added in 1951.
• Art. 19(2) has 8 grounds, and the list is complete (Kaushal Kishor, 2023). "Public health" and "public interest" are not grounds for limiting speech.
• Romesh Thappar (1950) and Brij Bhushan (1950) led to the 1st Amendment. "Public safety" was not a ground at that time.
• Shreya Singhal (2015): s.66A struck down, s.69A upheld, s.79 read down. Trap: the blocking power was not struck down.
• Contempt of court is a 19(2) ground. Arts. 129 and 215 give the Supreme Court and High Courts the power to punish it.

Mains Points

• Liberty vs. order: the 1st Amendment came only 18 months after the Constitution started, which shows the early State's fear of disorder.
• The word "reasonable" and judicial review (the courts' power to strike down unfair laws) are the balance.

• Shreya Singhal's line between discussion, advocacy and incitement is the best test of proportion.

• Chilling effect (people staying quiet out of fear): criminal defamation, s.66A cases still filed after it was struck down, and slow trials all discourage speech.

• Reforms: make defamation a civil wrong only, act fast against cases based on invalid laws, and train the police.

• BNS s.152 should write the Kedar Nath incitement-to-violence test into its text.

• Digital speech: the fact-check unit, s.69A blocking orders that are not made public, and takedowns by platforms raise one question: should the government decide what is true?

• Better options: independent oversight, publishing blocking orders, and giving users notice and a right to appeal.
• The government's amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021 aims at transparency, accountability and safeguards [8]. Every rule must still stay within the eight Art. 19(2) grounds.

Related concepts

• Right to freedom
• Freedom of speech and expression
• Freedom of the press
• Restrictions on freedom of speech
• Romesh Thappar case
• Kedar Nath Singh case
• Sedition
• Criminal defamation
• Shreya Singhal case
• Bijoe Emmanuel case

Read more

• Freedom of speech and expression