Abstract
The case of Sakal Papers v. Union of India, which was decided as far back as 1961, raised questions of far reaching constitutional importance which have yet not been satisfactorily answered. Three of the critical questions raised in that case have been addressed in this paper: first, the exact nature and scope of free speech has been analysed, and the competing viewpoints regarding the intrinsic and the instrumental nature of free speech have been compared. Secondly, the question of whether liberty for some can be curtailed to let others exercise their liberty has been analysed. Given the inapplicability of American First Amendment jurisprudence to the Indian context because of the presence of Article 19(2), both these issues have been examined within the sole framework of Article 19(1)(a). Lastly, the object and form test for finding out infringement of rights as evolved in Sakal and Bennett Coleman has been compared with the pith and substance test advocated by Mr. Seervai, and an attempt has been made to reconcile the two. The findings of this paper seem to point to a need for a development of Article 19(1)(a) jurisprudence in India; for unlike the well-traversed realm of Article 19(2), there is very little scholarship yet on the exact interpretation of the term 'free speech and expression."
Recommended Citation
Bhatia, Gautam
(2009)
"From Sakal to M.F. Hussain and Baragur Ramchandrappa: The Implications for Free Speech,"
National Law School of India Review: Vol. 21:
Iss.
1, Article 9.
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol21/iss1/9
