UNIT 3

Freedom of press and challenges: Freedom of speech and right to broadcast and telecast; Right
to life, privacy, strikes, hartal and bandh; Emerging Regime of New Rights and Remedies:

S. CHARAN
Reading Directive principles and fundamental duties into fundamental rights; Compensation
jurisprudence; Right to education; Commercialization of education and its impact.
1} RIGHT TO EDUCATION

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, widely known as the RTE
Act or Right to Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Act or RTE Act) was passed
by the Rajya Sabha on 20th July, 2009 and Lok Sabha on 4th August, 2009.
every child between the age of six to fourteen years, as a matter of right, can have access to
free and compulsory education. Every single child of 6-14 years, irrespective of his/her caste,
religion, gender, wealth, place of birth, etc., is now entitled to free and compulsory education.
Right to Education under Article 21of the Indian Constitution
Before the Right to Education Act came into the picture, it was the Supreme Court that held
that the Right to Education falls under the hallowed walls of the fundamental right to live with
dignity guaranteed under Article 21 because education ensures a good and dignified life.
Right to Education under Article 21-A of the Indian Constitution
To give better effect to the J.P. Unni Krishnan judgement, which was held that the government
institutions for being reluctant with the enforcement of Article 45 and held that every child
who is deprived of the right to education can issue a writ of mandamus against the appropriate
authority for the enforcement of their deprived right.
the Parliament passed the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 (w.e.f. 1.4.2010) which
inserted Article 21-A under Part III of the Constitution envisaging the fundamental right to
free and compulsory education for all children between the age group of six to fourteen years.
Article 21-A has been hailed as the most significant of all fundamental rights because one’s
ability to enforce his fundamental rights comes from his education.
Features of the RTE Act
The salient features of the RTE Act linked up with their relevant provisions are as below:
Right to free and compulsory education (Chapter II of the Act):
Fundamental right of every child between the age group of 6-14:
According to Section 3(1) of the RTE Act, every child of the age group of six to fourteen years
shall have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the
completion of his or her elementary education.
No fee or charges or expenses:
According to Section 3(2) of the RTE Act, no school fees, capitation fees, charges or expenses
are to be borne by a child to get elementary education which may prevent him or her from
pursuing and finishing his or her elementary education.
S. CHARAN
Free textbooks, writing materials, uniforms:
Corollary to the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act, every student is entitled to free
textbooks, writing materials and uniforms.
Applicable even to children with disabilities:
According to Section 3(3) of the RTE Act, any child with disabilities will also have the right
to access free and compulsory education at par with children with disabilities under the
provisions of Chapter V of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Moreover, according to the Proviso to Section 3 of
the Act, any child with ‘multiple disabilities’ or ‘severe disabilities may also have the right to
home-based education.
Special provision for children lacking pre-school education after 6 years:
Section 4 of the RTE Act comes to the rescue of children who missed or lack in their pre-
school education. In other words, Section 4 protects the children who even after six years of
age were not admitted to schools or though admitted could not complete their elementary
education. This Section states that the children are to be admitted in a class appropriate to his
or her age and special classes are to be given to the student to bring the candidate up to date
with the rest of the class. Also, for such a child who joined late, he or she shall have the right
to free and compulsory education even beyond the age of fourteen years till the completion of
his or her elementary education.
Right of transfer to other schools:
According to Section 5 of the RTE Act, if a school fails to provide the requisite facilities to
complete the elementary education, any student shall have the right to transfer his school to
any other school other than a school belonging to a specified category or an unaided school.
2) Duties of appropriate govt., local authority & parents to establish schools:
Section 6 of the RTE Act lays down the duty upon the state to establish schools in
neighbourhoods for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of this Act within three
years of the commencement of the Act.
3) Sharing of financials and other responsibilities:
According to Section 7 of the RTE Act, both the Central Government and the state
governments shall have concurrent responsibility for providing and sanctioning funds for
enforcing and carrying out the provisions of this noble Act. The Central Government shall
develop a national framework of the curriculum with the help of proper authority, develop and
enforce parameters for the training of teachers, and provide technical support and resources to
the state government for promoting innovations, research, planning and capacity building.
4) Duties of appropriate government and local authority:
According to Section 8 and Section 9 of the RTE Act, it is the duty of the appropriate
government and local authority respectively to ensure that the children are getting their Right
S. CHARAN
to Education guaranteed under the Constitution and RTE Act, ensure that the children from
economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups are not facing any discrimination etc.
5) Duty of parents and guardians:
According to Section 10 of the RTE Act, it shall be the solemn duty of every parent or guardian
to admit his or her child or ward, as the case may be, to an elementary school in the
neighbourhood for an education.
6) Appropriate government to provide for pre-school education:
According to Section 11 of the RTE Act, in order to sufficiently prepare children below the
age of six years for elementary school education, the appropriate government may take due
measures to freely educate such children above the age of three years.
7) Minimum twenty-five percent reservation:
According to Section 12 of the RTE Act, a minimum of twenty-five per cent reservation for
the economically weaker and disadvantaged group needs to be kept at all aided schools. Even
the schools belonging to specified categories and any unaided schools not receiving any kind
of aid or grant from the government or local authorities are required to keep the stipulated
reservation of a minimum of twenty-five per cent mandated by the RTE Act.

8) Reimbursement to unaided schools:

Section 12 of the Act also lays down provisions by which the unaided schools carrying out the
Right to Education duties under the RTE Act are reimbursed for expenditure incurred by it.
9) No capitation fees and screening procedure:
According to Section 13 of the RTE Act, no children or their parents are to be subjected to any
sort of screening procedure or required to pay any capitation fees for admission purposes.
10) Proper pupil-teacher ratio:
Section 25 of the RTE Act lays down provisions for a proper pupil-teacher ratio so as to ensure
that in the attempt of reaching the masses, the quality of education imparted does not slide
down.
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 (capitation fee case): The Court accepted that
expressly Right to Education as a fundamental right has not been laid down, but reading Article
21 along with Directive Principles in Articles 38, 39, 41 and 45 the Court opined that the
Constitution framers wanted to put a mandatory obligation on the state to provide education
to its citizens. The Bench further declared that charging a capitation fee amounted to
discrimination on a class basis thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Bench took
an absolutist view in imposing the state’s obligation to provide education at all levels.

In Shyam sundar case: Court tells that “Right of a child should not be restricted only to free
S. CHARAN
and compulsory education, but should be extended to have quality education without any
discrimination on the ground of their economic, social and cultural background.

Amendments related to the Right to Education Act, 2009

86th Constitutional Amendment:
The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2002 brought in three key changes in the domain of
education,
viz:
Insertion of Article 21-A
With the insertion of Article 21-A under Part III of the Constitution, the Fundamental Right to
Education as propounded in the Unni Krishnan, J.P & Ors v. state of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
(1993) case got laid down in stone. Unlike most developed countries, where it is the parents’
or guardians’ duty to make sure their children or wards are going to school, Article 21-A puts
that burden on the state. According to Article 21-A, every child between the six to fourteen
years of age group is entitled to receive free and compulsory education.
Insertion of Article 51-A(k)
In the list of fundamental duties, the 11th fundamental duty was added in the form of Clause(k)
after Clause (j) under Article 51-A. According to Article 51-A(k), a parent or guardian is to
provide opportunities for education to his child or ward, as the case may be, between the age
group of six to fourteen years.
Amendment of Article 45
By substituting the old Article 45 with the new one under Part IV of the Constitution, the
provisions for early childhood care and education for children below the age of six years were
laid down. According to the new Article 45, the state shall endeavour to provide early
childhood care and education for all children without any discrimination till the completion of
the age of six years.
It may be noted in this regard that all these Amendments brought in by the 86th Constitutional
Amendment Act, 2002 came into force on 1st April, 2010 along with the Right to Education
Act, 2009.

Nation Education Policy (NEP)

__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

S. CHARAN
__________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2019

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into
force on 1st March, 2019 and brought in a key change to the policy of no failing of students
till class 8 by amending Section 16 of the RTE Act.
Conclusion
The importance of education in today’s digital and fast-paced world is pretty evident. After
more than sixty decades of India’s independence, the Right to Education got the solemn status
of a fundamental right thereby turning the dream of the Constitution framers into a reality. This
watershed legislation in the field of education is the crown jewel that other states only dream
of. But unless the loopholes and the grey areas under this noble Act are patched up properly
with due efficacy and its proper implementation is enforced, this great Act might inevitably
meet the sad fate of an old toothless and clawless tiger.

S. CHARAN
2} DISCUSS THE SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Meaning and Scope of Article 19(1)(a)
According to Article 19(1)(a), all citizens can freely express their thoughts. This right includes
the freedom to express views through any medium. This includes words, writing, pictures,
gestures, signs, etc.
Freedom of expression has four broad special purposes to serve:
(i) It helps an individual, to attain self-fulfilment;
(ii) It assists in the discovery of truth;
(iii)It strengthens the capacity of and individual in participating in decision making; and
(iv) It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance
between stability and social change. All members of society should be able to form their own
belief and communicate them freely to others.
Scope:
Freedom of Speech & Expression: A Multifaceted Right
Judicial creativity, judicial wisdom and judicial craftsmanship have widened the scope of
freedom of speech & expression by including in it the following aspects
Freedom of Press
Right to Circulate
Right to receive information
Right to the advertisement (commercial speech)
Right to criticize
Right to expression beyond national boundaries
The right not to speak or the Right to silence is also included in the Right to speech and
expression.

Freedom of Press
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being
lost” –Thomas Jefferson
Over the last few decades, press and electronic media have emerged as major factors in our
nation’s life. In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political
intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator. The purpose of the

S. CHARAN
press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a
democratic electorate [Government] cannot make responsible judgments.
the press plays an important role in the democracy machinery. The courts have a duty to uphold
the freedom of the press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that would take that
freedom.
Freedom of Speech and of the Press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for
without free political discussion, no public education, so essential for the proper functioning
of the process of Government, is possible’.
Although freedom of the press is not mentioned in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, yet it
has been a part of freedom of speech and expression as considered by judges of the Supreme
Court through decided cases.
In Benet Coleman and Co. vs. Union of India, according to the Supreme Court of India, the
constraint of the permissible number of pages in the newspaper was found to be in violation
of Article 19(1)(a) and is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
In the case of Prabhu Dutt vs. Union of India, it was claimed that the right to know about the
news and details related to the government’s administration is included in the freedom of the
press.
Right to Circulate
The right to freedom of speech and expression has been held to include the right to circulate
information and opinion.
In Sakal Papers v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no laws can be made
by the State which directly affect the circulation of a newspaper as it will result in infringement
of the freedom of speech and expression.
The right under Article 19(1) (a) protects not only the contents which the citizen is entitled to
circulate but also the quantity and volume of the circulation. This case arose when the
newspaper agency challenged the newsprint policy made by the government which restricted
the agency to print more no. pages of newspaper then what was allowed.
Right to receive Information
The freedom of Speech and expression includes not only the right to circulate and publish
information but also include the right to receive information. The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave
a broad dimension to Article 19(1) (a) as it said that this right not only includes circulation and
communication but also receiving the information as they are two sides of the same coin, it
ensures the right of the citizens to know the information related to matters concerning the
public.
Right to the advertisement (commercial speech)
The right to advertise a product or any service through various methods such as signboards,
banners, circulars, handbills, direct mail, loudspeakers, newspapers, radio, television, on the
S. CHARAN
Internet, etc is included under Article 19(1) (a).In the case of Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Ltd, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that commercial speech is protected
under Article 19(1) (a) and cannot be denied merely because it is issued by businessmen, the
public has the right to receive commercial speech, to listen and to read it. Article 19(1) (a)
provides protection to both speakers as well as the recipient of the commercial speech.
Right to criticize
In S. Rangarajan v.P. Jagjivan Ram, everyone has a fundamental right to form his opinion on
any issues of general concern. Open criticism of government policies and operations is not a
ground for restricting expression. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the
person himself. In democracy, it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song.
Right to expression beyond national boundaries
In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, the Supreme Court considered whether Article 19(1)(a)
of Indian Constitution was confined to Indian territory and held that the freedom of speech and
expression is not confined to National boundaries.
Right not to speak or right to silence is also included in the Right to speech and expression
In the case of National Anthem, three students were expelled from the school for refusal to
sing the national anthem. However, the children stood up in respect when the national anthem
was playing. The validity of the expulsion of the students was challenged before the Kerala
High Court and they upheld the expulsion of the students on the ground that it was their
fundamental duty to sing the national anthem.
However, on an appeal being filed against the order of the Kerala High Court before the
Supreme Court, it was held by the Supreme Court that the students did not commit any offence
under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Also, there was no law under
which their fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) could be curtailed.
Limitation:
Reasonable Restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
The freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable constraints, and the Supreme
Court of India has defined reasonable restrictions as including the following characteristics.
Security of the State
Reasonable limits on freedom of speech and expression can be imposed for the sake of state
security. The concepts of “state security” and “public order” must be distinguished. Security
of the state refers to severe and aggravated public unrest, such as revolt, war against the state
[entire state or portion of the state], insurgency, etc.
Friendly ties with foreign states

S. CHARAN
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 included this basis. The state may impose
reasonable limits on freedom of speech and expression if it jeopardises India’s good ties with
other countries or states.
Public order
The term “public order” refers to a state of public peace, safety, and calm. Anything that upsets
public order is a violation of public peace [Om Prakash v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Nag, 199].
However, just criticising the government does not inevitably disrupt public order. A regulation
that punishes intentional comments that offend the religious emotions of any class has been
deemed a fair and reasonable limitation aimed at protecting public order. The Constitution
(First Amendment) Act of 1951 inserted this ground in response to the circumstances created
by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Romesh Thapar’s case. According to the Supreme Court,
public order is distinct from law and order and state security.
Morality and decency Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code are examples of limits on
freedom of speech and expression based on decency and morality, prohibiting the sale,
distribution, or exhibition of obscene phrases. The moral norm shifts with the passage of time.
Contempt of court
A person’s fundamental right to free expression does not permit him or her to contempt the
courts. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines the term “contempt of court.”
Under the Act, “contempt of court” relates to civil or criminal contempt.
Defamation
Article 19 clause (2) prohibits anybody from making any comment that defames the reputation
of another. Defamation is a felony in India, as enshrined in Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian
Penal Code. The right to free expression is not absolute. It does not imply the freedom to harm
another’s reputation, guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. Although the truth is
considered a defence against defamation, it would only be effective if the statement was made
‘for the public benefit.’ And that is a factual matter for the courts to decide.
Incitement to commit an offense
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951 also included this reason. A person is
likewise prohibited under the Constitution from making any comment that incites others to
commit a crime.
Indian sovereignty and integrity
This ground was introduced later by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. This
is intended to make it illegal for anybody to make remarks that undermine India’s integrity and
sovereignty.
Case laws:
In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras the Supreme Court held that right to free speech and
expression include the right not only to publish but also to circulate information and opinion.
S. CHARAN
Circulation is the lifeline of freedom. Without right to circulate, the right to free speech and
expression would have little meaning. The freedom of circulation has been held to be essential
as the freedom of publication.
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India the supreme court held that state could not make laws
which directly affect the circulation of a newspaper for that would amount to violation of the
freedom of speech. The right under article 19 (1) (a) extends not only to the matter which the
citizen is entitled to circulate but also to the volume of circulation.
In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India16 the Court, observed that, article 19 of the
Indian Constitution does not use the phrase “freedom of press” in its language, but it is
contained within Article 19(1) (a). There cannot be any interference with the freedom of press
in the name of public interest. It is, therefore, the primary duty of courts to uphold the freedom
of press and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it contrary to the
constitutional mandate. Similarly, imposition of pre-censorship of a journal, or prohibiting a
newspaper from publishing its own views about any burning issue is a restriction on the liberty
of the press.
Latest Dimensions of Freedom of Speech and Expression
The government has no monopoly on electronic media: The Supreme Court expanded the
scope and extent of the right to free speech and expression by ruling that the government has
no monopoly on electronic media and that a citizen has the right under Art. 19(1)(a) to telecast
and broadcast any important event to viewers/listeners through electronic media, television,
and radio. The government may restrict such a right only for the reasons indicated in clause
(2) of Art. 19 and not for any other reason. A citizen has the basic right to use the best methods
of communicating and receiving communication, including access to television for that
purpose.
Commercial Advertisements
The court determined that commercial communication, or advertising, is protected by the right
to free expression. However, it can be restricted by the government if it's deceptive, unfair,
misleading, or untruthful. Alternatively, the court emphasized that the general public has a
right to access "Commercial Speech." Article 19(1)(a) secures the freedom to speak and hear
such speech. Telephone tapping is considered an invasion of privacy and a violation of Art.
19(1)(a) unless it meets the conditions in Art. 19(1)(b)(2). As per the court's guidelines, only
the Home Secretary of federal and state governments can authorize telephone tapping. The
order for telephone tapping is subject to review by a higher authority committee, and its
duration cannot exceed two months unless extended by the review authority.
Freedom of Speech in Art
The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to Indian citizens in any form,
including art. The SC has held that art should be judged on the context and significance of the
artistic expression. Obscenity in art will be ignored if it is trivial or overshadowed by the
overall art.
S. CHARAN
There are restrictions on what can be shown in movies and cinemas as per the Cinematograph
Act of 1952. The CBFC regulates and certifies movies.
Freedom of Speech on social media
The High Courts have upheld that posting on social media is a fundamental right.
Government employees also enjoy this freedom. They can express political opinions on social
media subject to certain service rules.
Sedition vs. right to Free Speech and Expression
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code penalizes those who use words, written or spoken,
visual representation, or other means to promote disaffection, hatred, or contempt against the
legally constituted government.
This colonial-era sedition law has faced significant criticism for curbing freedom of speech
and expression.
While the section specifies that only attempts to incite hate, contempt, or disaffection qualify
as sedition, legitimate criticism for the purpose of reform has often been misinterpreted as
sedition.
To be deemed seditious, an act must intend to incite public unrest or disturb public peace.
In the Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar case, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of
Section 124A to those who used free speech to incite violence and break the law.
In the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, the court emphasized that there should be a
close connection between the expressed words and public disturbance.
Despite these legal clarifications, there continues to be a pattern of individuals charged with
sedition for criticizing the government. This abuse has led to calls for the repeal of the section
to protect the integrity of free speech and expression.
Hate Speech: - The SC had asked the Law Commission to empower the EC to restrict hate
speeches irrespective of when they are made. However, the Law Commission recommends
considering certain factors before restricting a speech. This includes the context, speaker,
victim, and impact.
Conclusion:
Need of these Safeguards of Freedom of Speech & Expression In order to safeguard state
security and its sovereignty as a speech can be used against the state as a tool to spread hatred.
To strike a social balance. Freedom is more purposeful if it is coupled with responsibility.
Certain prior restrictions are necessary to meet the collective interest of society. To protect
others’ rights. Any speech can harm a large group of people and their rights, hence reasonable
restrictions must be imposed so that others right is not hindered by the acts of one man.
[Link]
the-constitution-of-india/
S. CHARAN
3. RIGHT TO STRIKE
The history of labour struggle is nothing but a continuous demand for a fair return to labour
expressed in varied forms i.e.
(a) Increase in wages,
(b) Resistance to decrease in wages, and
(c) grant of allowances and benefits etc. If a labourer wants to achieve these gains individually,
he fails because of his weaker bargaining power, the management with the better economic
background stands in a better position to dictate its terms. Strike is an important weapon in the
hands of the labour used to strengthen his bargaining power.
Though right to strike is a statutory and a legal right however it cannot be said to be a
fundamental right and this view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in various decisions.
Right to strike as a legal right:
The working class has indisputably earned the right to strike as an industrial action after a long
struggle, so much so that the relevant industrial legislation recognizes it as their implied right.
Striking work is integral to the process of wage bargaining in an industrial economy.
A worker has no other means of defending her/his real wage other than seeking an increased
money wage. If a capitalist does not grant such an increase, s/he can be forced to come to a
negotiating table by striking workers. This s/he can do because the earnings of the capitalist
are contingent upon the worker continuing to work. The right to strike is organically linked
with the right to collective bargaining and will continue to remain an inalienable part of various
modes of response/expression by the working people, wherever the employer-employee
relationship exists, whether recognized or not.
In Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha (1980), Justice Bhagwati opined that right to
strike is integral of collective bargaining. He further stated that this right is a process
recognized by industrial jurisprudence and supported by social justice.
Strike as a statutory right:
The scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 implies a right to strike in industries. A wide
interpretation of the term industry by the courts includes hospitals, educational institutions,
clubs and government departments. Section 2 (q) of the Act defines strike as "strike means a
cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination or a
concerted refusal, or a refusal, under; a common understanding of any number of persons who
are or have been so employed to continue to work or to accept employment.
Sections 22, 23, and 24 all recognize the right to strike. Section 24 differentiates between
a legal strike and an illegal strike.

S. CHARAN
It defines illegal strikes as those which are in contravention to the procedure of going to strike,
as laid down under Sections 22 and 23. The provision thereby implies that all strikes are not
illegal and strikes in conformity with the procedure laid down, are legally recognized. It is thus
beyond doubt that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contemplates a right to strike. The
statutory provisions thus make a distinction between the legality and illegality of strike. It is
for the judiciary to examine whether it is legal or illegal.

The workers right to strike is complemented by the employers right to lock-out, thus
maintaining a balance of powers between the two. Besides the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
the Trade Unions Act, 1926 also recognizes the right to strike. Sections 18 and 19 of the Act
confer immunity upon trade unions on strike from civil liability.
Right to strike under international conventions:
Article 8 (1) (d) of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) provides that the States Parties to the Covenant shall undertake to ensure: "the right
to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.
Article 2 (1) of the Covenant provides: "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes
to take steps, ... with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights
recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the
adoption of legislative measures".
India is a signatory to the Covenant and is therefore bound under Article 2 (1) to provide for
the right to strike as enshrined in Article 8 (1) (d), through legislative measures or by other
appropriate means. Thus, the aforesaid domestic laws are the by-products of the international
obligations and cannot be read casually.

Right to strike has also been recognised by the conventions of the International Labour
Organization (ILO). By virtue of being a member of the ILO, India is under obligation to
satisfy at least the fundamental rights promoted by the Conventions, irrespective of it having
ratified them or not. Further, India is not an ordinary member of the ILO, but one of the
founding members of the Organization.
View of SC on right to strike:
Even as early as 1961, the Supreme Court had held in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of
Bihar (1962) that even a very liberal interpretation of article 19 (1) (c) could not lead to the
conclusion that the trade unions have a guaranteed fundamental right to strike. In All India
Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (1962) also the SC held that
right to strike cannot said to be a part of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

It was a culmination of the ratios of the Kameshwar Prasad and the A.I.B.E. cases that resulted
S. CHARAN
in the decision in the highly contentious Rangarajan case. In T.K. Rangarajan v. Government
of Tamil Nadu and Others (2003) the SC opined that not only there existed no fundamental
right to strike but also stated that the Government employees have no "legal, moral or equitable
right".
Taking the facts into consideration of the Rangarajan case, the action of the Tamil Nadu
government terminating the services of all the employees who have resorted to strike for their
demands was challenged before the Hon’ble High court of Madras, by writ petitions under
Articles 226/227 of the constitution. On behalf of the government employees, writ petitions
were filed challenging the validity of the Tamil Nadu Essential Services Maintenance Act
(TESMA), 2002 and also the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 2 of 2003. The division bench of the court
set aside the interim order, and pronounced that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the
Administrative Tribunal was not approached. The division bench judgment was challenged
before the Supreme Court.
The Rangarajan case relies on a number of case laws dating back to the 1960s (Kameshwar
Prasad & AIBE Association). The only recent judgments that the Court relied upon -
namely, Harish Uppal vs, UOI (2003) and Bharat Kr. Palicha vs. State of Kerela (1998) - to
demonstrate that there is no right to strike seem to have been misapplied, contrary to their
letter and spirit. In Harish Uppal the court held that advocates have no right to strike. However,
the court also opined:

"In the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the
Bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for
not more than one day".
The court, therefore, acknowledges that the right to strike exists and which can be exercised if
a rare situation demands so. The apex court has only tried to restrict the right to strike of
advocates with regards to the significant role they play in the administration of justice. For all
others this sacred right holds good force.
In Bharat Kr. Palicha vs. State of Kerela the apex court has held bundhs to be
unconstitutional. The same is relied upon in the Rangarajan case. However, the court failed to
notice that the judgment does not keep a bundh and a general strike on the same pedestal.
Where, on the one hand, a bundh is unconstitutional, a hartal or a general strike is very much
legal. The Rangarajan case suffers from an illegality insofar as it attempts to place a blanket
ban on all kinds of strikes irrespective of whether they are hartals or bundhs.

The Rangarajan case simply ignores statutory provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and an equal number of case laws laid down by larger benches
that have recognized the right to strike. It also fails to consider International Covenants that
pave the way for this right as a basic tenet of international labour standards.
In B.R. Singh v. Union of India (1990), SC opined that:

S. CHARAN
"The Trade Unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively
with the management than individual workmen. The bargaining strength would be
considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate by adopting agitational methods such
as work to rule, go-slow, absenteeism, sit-down strike, and strike. This has been recognized by
almost all democratic countries".

In Gujarat Steel Tubes v. Its Mazdoor Sabha (1980) also the right to strike has been
recognised by the SC. Gujarat Steel Tubes is a three-judge bench decision and cannot be
overruled by the division bench decision of Rangarajan. In the Rangarajan case the court had
no authority to wash out completely the legal right evolved by judicial legislation.
Strike: A weapon of last resort
While on the one hand it has to be remembered that a strike is a legitimate and sometime
unavoidable weapon in the hands of labour, it is equally important that indiscriminate and
hasty use of this weapon should not be encouraged. It will not be right for labour to think that
any kind of demand for a strike can be commenced with impunity without exhausting the
reasonable avenues for peaceful achievement of the objects.
There may be cases where the demand is of such an urgent and serious nature that it would not
be reasonable to expect the labour to wait after asking the government to make a reference. In
such cases the strike, even before such a request has been made, may very well be justified.
Thus, initially, employees must resort to dispute settlement by alternative mechanisms. Only
under extreme situations when the alternative mechanisms have totally failed to provide any
amicable settlement, can they resort to a strike as a last resort.
Conclusion:
Though the Apex Court has not recognised the right to strike as a fundamental right however
time and again the Court has also settled that the right to strike is a legal right, one that is
recognized by most democratic countries of the world.

S. CHARAN
4) COMPENSATION JURISPRUDENCE

Compensation to victims is a recognised principle of law being enforced through the ordinary
civil courts. Under the law of torts, the victims can claim compensation for the injury to the
person or property suffered by them. It is taking decades for the victims to get a decree for
damages or compensation through civil courts, which is resulting in so much hardship to them.
The emergence of compensatory jurisprudence in the light of human rights philosophy is a
positive signal indicating that the judiciary has undertaken the task of protecting the right to
life and personal liberty of all the people irrespective of the absence of any express
constitutional provision and of judicial precedents.
Article 32 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Supreme Court to issue direction
or order or writ, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo-
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III is "guaranteed", that is to
say, the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is itself a fundamental right.

The approach of redressing the wrong by award of monetary compensation against the State
for its failure to protect the fundamental right of the citizen has been adopted by the courts of
Ireland, which has a written Constitution, guaranteeing fundamental rights, but which also like
the Indian Constitution contains no provision of remedy of compensation for the infringement
of those rights. That has, however, not prevented the courts in Ireland from developing
remedies, including the award of damages, not only against individuals guilty of infringement,
but also against the State itself.
Article 32(1) provides for the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for
the enforcement of the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court under Article 32(2) is free to
devise any procedure for the enforcement of fundamental right and it has the power to issue
any process necessary in a given case. In view of this constitutional provision, the Supreme
Court may even give remedial assistance, which may include compensation in "appropriate
cases".
Idea of Compensation
The Idea of Compensation to victim of crime particularly to the crime victims by the state is
gaining much importance. Though this idea is an age old one, its development on more
scientific lines and also as a branch of criminology has begun since a few decades ago. The
modern states which are described welfare states have realized the importance of the subject
compensation to the victims of crime and are accordingly taping up several victim
compensation programmes, as part of their General welfare. Various countries have taken up
the scheme of payment of compensation to victim of crime. There is a fund for payment of

S. CHARAN
compensation to crime victims in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, under
the control of a board. We too need such fund to assist and assure the victims that ‘we care’.
Laws on Commission In India
The term ‘Compensation’ means amend for the loss sustained. Compensation is anything given
to make things equivalent, a thing given to make amends for loss, recompense, remuneration
or bay. It is counter balancing of the victim’s sufferings and loss that result from victimization.
The rationale or basis for compensation may be the following three perspective:
1. As an additional type of social insurance
2. As an welfare measure another facet of the Government/Public assistance of the
Unprivileged.
3. A way of meeting an overlooked governmental obligation to all citizens.
The penologist recognized that adequate compensation to the victims from the accused or
alternatively from the state is objective of the science of victimology which is gaining ground
and deserves attention.
In India there is no comprehensive legislation or statutory scheme providing for compensation
to victims of crime. In some European countries provisions are made for payment of
compensation to the victims of crime in the course of criminal proceedings. Justice requires
that a person who has suffered must be compensated. Basically the accused is responsible for
the harm caused to the victim. We have five statutes, under which compensation may be
awarded to the victims of crime.
1. The fatal Accident Act, 1855
2. The motor Vehicles Act, 1988
3. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
4. The Constitutional Remedies for Human Rights Violation
5. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Concept of Victimology
"The word Victimology is a new coinage and has gained considerable importance due to the
untiring work of Miss Margaret Fry of the John Howard Association of England, Benjamin
Mendelsohn, who in 1937 developed a scientific method for the study of the criminal act which
utilized biopsycho- social data on the criminal, on the victim and on the witnesses bystanders,
and the World Society of Victimology having been himself the victim of discrimination,
Mendelsohn became interested in the victim and in his/hers relationship with the criminal."
Schafer defines Victimology as "the study of criminal victim relationship". Drapin and Viano
define it as "that branch of criminology which primarily studies the victim of crime and
everything that is concerned with such a victim". In the words of Fattah: "While studying

S. CHARAN
biological, sociological, psychological, and criminological details about the victim -
victimology brings into focus the victim-offender relationship and role played by victim."
The 7th United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders came
out with a declaration of basic principles of Justice of Victims of crime and abuse of power,
which was later adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. In the declaration, the U.N. defined
the "Victims of Crime" as follows:
1. "Victims" means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including
physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of
their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws
operative within Member States, including those laws prescribing criminal abuse of power.
2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether the
perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial
relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term "victim" also includes, where
appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have
suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization. Victims
are several time suffering emotionally the most.
Compensation To Victims In Crime
The reactions to crime have been different at different stages of human civilization. There are
number of theories available pertaining to 'Reaction to crime'. Important among these theories
are Retribution theory, Utilitarian theory, Deterrent theory etc. In common, every theory
provides justification punishment. We can summaries the objects of punishment as:
1. partly of making example of the criminal;
2. partly of deterring the criminal from repeating the same act;
3. partly of reforming the criminal by eradicating the evil will; and
4. Partly of satisfying society's feeling of vengeance which the act is supposed to evoke.
The law in the early stages of civilization was to compensate the victim and not to punish the
offender. Narada was the first to recommend compensation to the victims by the offender in
order to expiate his sins. "If we go back to the origin of criminal law, we see that the victim
and his family occupy a central position: it is the victim and his family who have the right to
request revenge or penitence. However, over the centuries, with the evolution of the state and
the organization of state prosecution the role of the victim has changed: from his central
position the victim has been shifted to a marginal one."
Few Problems
The basic problem one has to face while dealing with the compensation aspect of the crime is,
‘Is compensation for the Damage caused by Crime an objective of the Criminal Process’? A
decision on this point is especially important when the judge imposes on the offender various
financial obligations like court costs, fines, and compensation to the victim. Which of these
S. CHARAN
obligations should take precedence over others if the offender’s financial means are
insufficient to satisfy all of them? One more important problem that arises is the financial
background of the offenders because often they tend to be poor. If the offender has committed
an economic offence then he has the capacity to compensate, otherwise it is very difficult for
the victim to get sufficient proportion of compensation.
The case of restitution to victims of crime rested primarily on two obligations: an obligation
of the criminal who inflicted the harm against person or property and an obligation of the state,
which failed to protect the victim. The second obligation is much more important because it is
the duty of the state to provide effective security against the crime.
In India, the trend in this direction is quite good now. The dictum that ‘ King can do no wrong’
is in the wane. Modern welfare society, has taken the responsibility to protect its citizens from
crime. That is why the punishment aspect solely rests with the state. Though retribution is
having subordinate position in Indian legal system yet it is trying hard to get its feet moving.
In last few decades retribution aspect has found its way in to the mainstream of criminal law.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Ø Compensation related to Constitutional Injuries
A constitutional solution to fill the gap in the legal right to compensation in the monetary way
for the abuse of the many human rights has been found by the apex courts. The Apex Court in
the case Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar for the first time laid down the principle that compensation
can be given in the cases where any fundamental right of an individual has been injured and
that the upper courts have the authority to do so “through the exercise of writ jurisdiction and
evolved the principle of compensatory justice in the annals of human rights jurisprudence.”
We can clearly see that monetary compensation had been made in cases where an individual’s
legal rights have been damaged. Even though there isn’t a statute defining such a claim, the
courts have exercised this power wherever they deemed fit. If a person’s fundamental right is
violated or where a writ petition is not generated by the court itself, the said person’s right to
compensation comes into effect and he should be compensated adequately in such cases.

In Sebastain v. Union of India, “on account of failure of Government to produce in habeas

corpus petition filed by wives, apex court awarded cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be given to wife of
each of detenne.”
Ø Compensation under criminal law
The theory of compensation in criminal law is mainly about compensation to the victim of a
crime. A victim to a crime is one who has suffered any loss because of some act or omission
of the accused. The victim not only suffers physical injuries but also psychological and
financial hardships too. The plight of a victim is only made worse by lengthy hearings and
tedious proceedings of courts and improper conduct of the police. The victim is literally

S. CHARAN
traumatised again in the process of seeking justice for the first injury. The legal heirs/guardians
of the victim too come in the same definition.
The law makers made provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under Section 357(3)
to enable the Courts to award any amount of compensation to the victims of a crime. This was
depicted in the landmark case of Hari Kisan where the Supreme Court had awarded
compensation as punishment, of Rs. 50,000. Not only this, the lower courts were asked and
advised to “exercise the power of awarding compensation to the victims of offences in such a
liberal way that the victims may not have to rush to the civil courts”

The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

It is pertinent to examine in brief historically the action taken by individuals against the state.
The Indian law was in a state of confusion from its colonial times. This was because the
concept of tortuous liability – as it existed in England – was blindly followed in India. Though
liability existed in some areas, the Indian courts had been so obsessed with the maxim “King
can do no wrong” that they made a distinction between sovereign and non – sovereign
functions.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, laid down that the
exercise of a sovereign function will not give rise to a tort action. This decision was erroneous,
and to an extent was resolved by later decisions enumerated in this article, but has still not
been completely overruled. Most judges either conveniently avoid reference to it or distinguish
its ratio.
Judicial Jurisprudence Towards Compensation Law In India
In Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar Supreme Court through Chief Justice Chandrachud held,
"Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant
content if the power of this court were limited to passing orders of release from illegal
detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right can reasonably be
prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured is to mulct its violators
in the payment of monetary compensation." There must be direct and proximate nexus between
the complaint and the arrest for the award of compensation under sec. 358 of the Cr. P.C. Any
person is entitled to compensation for the loss or injury caused by the offence, and it includes
the "wife, husband, parent and child" of the deceased victim. In Sarwan Singh's case court held
that in awarding such compensation, the court is to take into consideration various factors such
as capacity of the accused to pay, the nature of the crime, the nature of the injury suffered and
other relevant factors. "Power to award compensation to victims should be liberally exercised
by courts to meet the ends of justice… in addition to the conviction; the court may order the
accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to the victim who has suffered by the
action of accused. It is not alternative to but in addition thereto. The payment of compensation
must be reasonable. The quantum of compensation depends upon facts, circumstances, the
nature of the crime, the justness of the claim of the victim and the capacity of the accused to
S. CHARAN
pay. If there are more than one accused, quantum may be divided equally unless their capacity
to pay varies considerably. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by
instalment, may be given.
In a certain case the Court held that where the amount fixed was repulsively low so as to make
it a mockery of the sentence, it would be enhanced; the financial capacity of the accused,
enormity of the offence, extent of damage caused to the victim, are the relevant considerations
in fixing up the amount. The court in Balraj v. State of U.P. held that the power to award
compensation under section 357 (3) is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition
thereto.

The compensation for illegal detention is the area, which unearthed new doctrines pertaining
to the compensation laws in India. In yet another case, two women filed a writ of habeas corpus
to produce two persons (their husbands) who were found missing. The authorities failed to
produce them. The Court concluded, on the basis of material placed before it, that the two
persons 'must have met unnatural deaths, and that prima facie they would be offences of
murder. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 1, 00, 000/- to each of the
wives of the missing persons.
Awards of Compensation To Victims By Courts
There is plethora of case law where the Supreme Court has awarded compensation to the
victims whose plight was brought to the notice of the apex court either by themselves or by
way of PIL with the aim of protecting the human rights of the victims in our criminal justice
system and to fulfill the constitutional obligation the Supreme Court can direct the government
to confer jurisdiction on the criminal courts by making statutory provisions for the
compensation to the victims of crime irrespective of whether the accused is convicted or not
and to make statutory provisions for participation of the victims in prosecution along with
prosecuting agency in a criminal case instituted on a police report.
The court has also granted monetary compensation to victims of custodial violence in many
cases. In a landmark judgment of Nilabati Behra case the apex court awarded compensation
of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the mother of deceased who died in police custody due to torture. In D.K.
Basu v. State of West Bengal – the Apex court held that compensation can be granted under
the public law by the Supreme Court and High Court in addition to private law remedy for
tortuous action and punishment to wrong doer under criminal law for established breach of
fundamental rights.
Universal declaration of Human Right, 1948 under Article 5 says that no one shall be subjected
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and also Article 8 of
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 14 of international covenant on civil and
political Rights in Provides for compensation for violation of fundamental Rights.

S. CHARAN
Critical Analysis
When a crime is committed against a person, the victim loses out a lot apart from incurring
damages and injuries. The work of a judiciary should not only be to punish the guilty but also
compensate the victim as even if the accused is punished, the victim’s loss is not compensated.
The compensation given should at least try to put the victim in a state in which he was before.
It is not like victims of crime can never ask for compensation as such a prayer is available
under civil laws, but filing two different suits for the same offence in two different courts. The
proceedings for one suit are most of the times is agonizing, that such a procedure of filing
different suits only gives the victim a second traumatisation.
The idea behind providing compensation is legal as well as humanitarian. The inability to
protect the person by the State makes it legally obligatory for the State to compensate him.
The victim goes through such pain and many times permanent loss of income only makes it
logical for him to be compensated.
Conclusion
We come to the conclusion that compensation is not only required but is in fact a very
important aspect of even criminal law and the courts should not use this sparingly but a little
liberally. Of course, they should be careful of not awarding too high a compensation and hence
should be careful.
The government should take into consideration the suggestions of the Supreme Court and set
up Compensation Boards to help the victims with financial issues. Prior to CrPC (Amendment)
2008, India lacked an all-inclusive legislation for compensation of victims. “Compassionate
treatment of victims under the criminal justice system itself leads to the belief in the system
which is enhanced by way of compensation programmes, independent of conviction of
offenders”.

S. CHARAN
5) COMMERCIALISATION OF EDUCATION AND ITS IMPACT

INTRODUCTION
The advent of the commercialization of education in India has been fairly recent. It stems from
the reforms made in the educational sector in the past two decades. It manifests itself in
flourishing private schools, public schools, and private universities and at the higher education
level. The commercialization of education brings in a financial aspect thereby affecting
millions of families. It also brings about a change in the traditional concept of education. The
happenings of the education sector depend on the socio-economic development of the country.
With modernization and globalization, the attitude towards teaching and learning has also been
impacted.
WHAT IS THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF EDUCATION
Commercialization is defined as the process by which a product is introduced in the general
market. Commercialization of education is when the primacy given to the humanities
decreases and the attention to the demand of students increases. Education thus moves towards
being business-oriented. Commercialization leads to schools competing to provide quality
education at a reasonable price. Commercialization of education leads to the direction of
education being in the hands of students and teachers.

REASONS FOR COMMERCIALIZATION OF EDUCATION IN INDIA

The basic reason for the commercialization of education is measured by the amount of money
invested in education. It is assumed that the more the popularity of a school, the better the
education it provides. This mentality is very evident in India. In addition to that, India faces a
high level of competition in the education sector on a global level. Thus, schools have adopted
the strategy of increasing fees to gain popularity. The government is not able to curb such
malpractices due to insufficient funds. With the entry of foreign universities solely whose sole
aim is profit-making, more pressure is added on Indian universities to increase their fees.
Another reason for the commercialization of education in India is the rise in the number of
private educational institutions with the increase in population. The number of students
pursuing secondary education in India is drastically increasing every year thus this leads to a
good opportunity for educational institutions with the agenda of profit-making. Albeit the
government is committed to providing primary education and certain cesses for higher
educational institutions, there is vast privatization in the educational sector.
MERITS OF COMMERCIALIZATION OF EDUCATION
While the commercialization of education has many disadvantages, it has many advantages as
well. Listed below are some of the advantages.

S. CHARAN
Employment opportunity
The commercialization of education increases employment opportunities. It provides job
guarantees to students as many private institutions offer courses that are job-oriented that help
students to engage in jobs and this leads to the vocalization of their skills. Due to the
commercialization of education, various organizations such as the General Agreement on
Trade in Services (GATS) provide students with the opportunity to pursue professional courses
in foreign institutions. In addition to this, teachers and lecturers are also engaged in job
opportunities abroad. Thus, the commercialization of education reduces the problem of
unemployment in the country.
Economic development
Commercialization of education brings in economic development. Commercialization of
education helps in improving literacy rates that is a major indicator of economic development.
In addition to this, commercialization also improves the gross domestic product of the country
which is another indicator of economic development. Hence, the commercialization of
education contributes to the economic development of a country.
Ability to overcome global challenges
Commercialization of education assists with confronting the worldwide difficulties of the
world. The worldwide difficulties are modernization, industrialization, privatization,
globalization, data, and so on. Commercialization of education helps the students in gaining
suitable information about the benefits of innovation. By virtue of the development of an
international information network, the role of the English language, and so forth, the
commercialization of training helps the students to gain suitable information about the benefits
of innovation. The difficulties, how to embrace it, how to help, and so forth give interest to
preparation that can be applied in reality. For this, several educational organizations have
changed the curriculum and educational plan to address the new worldwide difficulties.
Personality development
Commercialization of education fosters the personality development of the students.
Commercialization of education provided students with formal education. In order to develop
the persona of students, they are provided with or taught moral education. Subjects like moral
science are also included. This leads to the personality development of students.

Development of society
Commercialization of education leads to social development. For the development of a
country, social development is very necessary. In educational institutions, students are
conferred with skills that inevitably lead to their social development. Through education,

S. CHARAN
students develop social skills. Thus, the commercialization of education helps in social
development and provides education based on the needs of society.
DEMERITS OF COMMERCIALIZATION OF EDUCATION
The disadvantages of the commercialization of education are listed below.
More emphasis on marks
The commercialization of education leads to more emphasis on marks. Rather than focus on
the development of children, students are forced to focus solely on academics. In most
institutions, parents fall victim to the farce of commercial and vocational studies.
Inability to maintain the principle of quality
The commercialization of education can’t keep up with the rule of equality. In the public arena,
there are three kinds of individuals – high society individuals, working-class individuals, and
lower-class individuals. Because of the commercialization of the schooling framework, the
destitute individuals, just as the more fragile segment of the general public, do not have the
option to get an education because of the high pace of expenses in conceding the students.
Rich individuals will only have the option to get educated since they have the ability to go
through a high measure of cash.
Profit oriented
The commercialization of education focuses only on the profit-making ability of the education
sector. It transforms the education sector into a business. Many schools for example have
canteens and cafes which provide schools with an opportunity to make more money. This is a
perfect example of commercialization.
High cost
The impact of the commercialization of education makes education very costly. In many
private institutions, the fees are very high making it very inaccessible. With the advent of the
commercialization of the education sector, students are seen merely as consumers.
Materialistic outlook
The commercialization of education has led to students developing a materialistic outlook. The
students then tend to develop a selfish attitude rather than focussing on the development of the
country.
RESPONSE OF THE JUDICIARY
In the case of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court recognizing the right
to education determined that anyone is entitled to own equal probability for admission to any
educational course for their cultural growth, coaching facility speciality, speciality, or
employment. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1983), the Supreme
Court had to decide what constitutes human dignity. The court set down basic constituents of
human dignity including the right to induce education facilities also.
S. CHARAN
In cases like Pradeep Jain and Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the court emphasised the right to
education however in these cases the opinion of the court was simply the obiter dicta, hence
they were not binding.
The case of Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), recognized that the value of
education might vary, even at intervals, from establishment to establishment. The facilities
providing equipment, infrastructure, commonplace, and quality of education might vary from
establishment to establishment. It is submitted that the fee structure approved by the Supreme
Court for skilled courses led to the development of education in skilled courses. The effective
due process may be higher appreciated taking any state wherever unaided non-public skilled
faculties exist.

S. CHARAN
6) DISCUSS WITH CASE LAWS THE SCOPE OF PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY
LAW UNDER ARTICLE 21.

Procedure Established by Law in India - Background

Since 1978, the Indian judiciary has attempted to make the terms procedure established by law
synonymous with due process of law when it comes to preserving an individual's rights.
The Supreme Court declared in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) that a procedure
established by law under Article 21 must be "just, fair, and reasonable," and not "unjustifiable,
fanciful, or arbitrary."
Thus, in India, the term procedure established by law has acquired the same significance as
the phrase due process of law in the United States.
Procedure Established by Law:
The promise of Article 21 is that No person shall be deprived of his or her life and personal
liberty except according to the 'procedure established by law'. This is interesting as this phrase
only limits the executive and not the legislative wing of the state. If the words 'procedure
established by law' ought to be construed literally, it means that a person can be deprived of
his life and personal liberty if such deprivation conforms to a validly enacted law.
Justice Felix Frankfurter is reported to have suggested BN Rau to drop the term 'due process
of the law' from the draft constitution and replace it with 'Procedure Established by law'.
Frankfurter's suggestion was a product of the experience of the American justice system with
the term 'due process of law' which was used by US Courts to quash social welfare laws. The
framers were constantly weary about the use of 'due process', they made many changes before
ultimately replacing the term. Changes like the omission of the property clause, the limiting
of liberty to mean only 'personal liberty' are some examples.
Procedure Established by Law and Article 21
Part III of the Constitution establishes Article 21 as a fundamental right. It is regarded as one
of the most essential and progressive clauses in our country's constitution.
Article 21 can only be used when the 'State,' as defined in Article 12, deprives an individual
of his or her life or personal liberty.
As a result, infringement of the right by a private individual falls beyond the purview of Article
21.
The Indian Constitution protects two fundamental rights in Article 21:
The right to life
The right to personal liberty

S. CHARAN
The significance of Article 21 is that the two rights stated above cannot be taken away without
following the necessary procedure.
This indicates that the above-mentioned rights, namely life and personal liberty, can be
revoked provided the legislature follows the correct procedure.
The judgement in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) considerably broadened the scope
of Article 21 and achieved the Preamble's goal of making our country a welfare state.
The Court found that the legal procedure should be fair, just, and reasonable.
The Court stated that the legal procedure for depriving a person of his right to life and personal
liberty must be legitimate, reasonable, and fair, rather than discretionary, and arbitrary.

Important judgements about Procedure Established by Law

A.K. Gopalan v. Government of India (1965)
In this case the Supreme Court declared that if the government takes away an individual's
freedom in accordance with the legal system, i.e., if the incarceration was done properly, it
would not be regarded as a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
In this decision, the Court used a restrictive reading of Article 21.
In this instance, the Court interpreted Article 21 quite literally, ruling that the phrase procedure
established by law means that a method established in a legislation can revoke the right to life
and personal liberty.
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (1967)
The Court determined in this case that the procedure established under Article 21 to deprive a
person of life and liberty must be evaluated under Article 14 to ensure its legitimacy and
justice.
This case established a new legal precedent, which was upheld in R.C. Cooper v. Union of
India (1970), in which the Supreme Court stated unambiguously that the method used under
Article 21 must be reasonable.
ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976)
When a national emergency was declared in 1975, the Court overruled its own judgement.
The Court supported the imprisonment under the 1971 Maintenance of Internal Security Act
(MISA), while completely rejecting Article 21.
The Court held that Article 21 is suspended during an emergency.

S. CHARAN
As a result, in this case, the Court will only consider the literal meaning of the Procedure
Established by Law. The Court made no determination as to whether the government act
(MISA, 1971) was just, fair, or reasonable.
RC Cooper V Union of India
In the case of RC Cooper, the Supreme Court made a significant contribution by overturning
the majority position in Gopalan that had held that Articles 19 and 21 dealt with separate and
exclusive areas. In the context of the right to property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, the Court
held that the freedoms and rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution could be addressed
by more than one provision. This decision helped to clarify the relationship between different
provisions of the Constitution and ensured that the fundamental rights of citizens were
adequately protected.
Conclusion
"Procedure established by law" means that a law that has been lawfully enacted is valid, even
if it violates justice and equitable ideals. The tight adherence to the legal procedure may
increase the risk of persons' lives and personal liberty being jeopardised as a result of unjust
laws enacted by the law-making authority. The Supreme Court emphasised the need for due
process of law in order to avert this predicament.

S. CHARAN
7) TRACE THE EVOLUTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS A FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT.

Introduction
On August 24th, 2017, Supreme Court has given its verdict on Right to privacy in Justice K
S Puttaswamy V Union of India, declaring it as a fundamental right of a citizen. This
judgment has finally put an end to the long historical legal battle from the past 40-50 years.
Since the 1960s, the Indian judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular, have dealt with the
issue of privacy, both as a fundamental right under the constitution and as a common law right.
The common thread through all these judgment by the supreme court of India has been to
recognize a right to privacy either as a fundamental under the constitution or as a common law
right, but to refrain from giving a specific definition before the recent landmark judgement.
Instead, court has decided to have it evolve on case-to-case basis.
The right to privacy has evolved from being protection against unnecessary state intervention
in the lives of its subjects to the right to informational privacy, protecting individuals’ sensitive
personal information from unwanted and unlawful attacks by the state or even non-state actors.
The development of these technologies has brought new challenges to protecting the data of
individuals from cyber-attacks, identity thefts, and data breaches. M. P. Sharma v. Satish
Chandra (1954) was the first case in India on the grounds of protection from unnecessary
searches and seizures. Even when privacy was not given the status of a fundamental right, the
courts had time and again iterated that the right to life and personal liberty cannot be enjoyed
to the fullest if there is an unlawful invasion in someone’s personal life. The Indian Judicial
System has largely followed American jurisprudence while dealing with privacy issues. The
protection against unwanted interference was granted by the principles of common law. Justice
Subba Rao, through his dissenting opinion in case of Kharak Singh (1963), held that the right
to life and liberty does not mean mere animal existence; it means life to live with human
dignity
The cases that led to the recognition of privacy as a fundamental right have been dealt with
in the following section.
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
Four years after the enforcement of the Constitution, protection from infringement on privacy
by search and seizure by police was sought before the Supreme Court of India by the Dalmia
Group, the largest industrial conglomerate of India at the time.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963)
It was acknowledged that the right to life under Article 21 does not mean mere ‘animal
existence’ but rather a dignified human life. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not use the word
privacy while striking down the provision of domiciliary visits on the rationale of privacy.
However, this judgement noted that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right in India.
S. CHARAN
A.K Gopalan v. The State (1950)
In this case, the petitioner argued that the search and seizure operation carried out in his
property violated the provision of Right To Property, as mentioned in Article 19(1). However,
the court rejected the argument regarding the right to privacy, saying that the act of police did
not obstruct his right to utilise his property. The court also mentioned the caveat of ‘reasonable
cause’, which gives police the power to search and seize.
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975)
This is the first case in India that extensively discusses the right to privacy. The
constitutionality of the police surveillance of criminals on the list of “history sheeters” was
again challenged before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1995)
This case is famously known as the Auto Shanker Case. The right to privacy was dealt with
against the right of the media to publish the autobiography of a prisoner exercising the right to
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
PUCL v. Union of India (1997)
This is the first PIL case to challenge the constitutionality of a law as violative of the right to
privacy. The Civil Society Organisation People’s Union for Civil Liberties filed a petition in
the Supreme Court contending that Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, gives the
state executives the power to tap the phones of individuals in certain circumstances as a stark
attack on the individual’s privacy.
Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India (2011)
This case is related to the failure of the government to address the routing of monies generated
from unlawful activities by national and legal entities to foreign banks, especially in tax-haven
countries with strict secrecy laws. The court noted that persons’ right to privacy cannot be
breached unless they have committed an unlawful act allowing the disclosure of information
about the persons against whom the investigation was completed and the proceedings were
initiated. However, it refused the disclosure of information about persons against whom the
investigation was not completed. The Supreme Court noted that “the right to privacy is an
integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is a cherished
constitutional value, and it is important that human beings be allowed domains of freedom that
are free from public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful manner.” The right of citizens to
seek protection of fundamental rights under Article 32 needs to be balanced against the right
of persons under Article 21.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union Of India (2017)
The watershed decision in the judicial history of India recognised the right to privacy as a
distinguished fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The decision of
this case laid the foundation for the identification and protection of other liberties in India such

S. CHARAN
as, the decriminalisation of adultery in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018),
decriminalisation of consensual same-sex relationship in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
(2018), etc. The Supreme Court of India observed that the concept of privacy entails the natural
right of a person to have autonomy in the choices made by him regarding core aspects of life.
Conclusion
The right to privacy has been given the status of a constitutionally protected right.
Jurisprudence is the result of the judicial intellect of the judges. The Court has proven itself to
be the true protector of fundamental rights by recognising new rights as per the changing needs
of society. The forms of protection sought for privacy have also changed over the years. At the
earliest stage, it was to protect the individual from an unwanted state’s interference in their
day-to-day life. Later, the protection of privacy was sought against the unwanted interference
in the personal life of an individual by the press, and thus it was recognised that there is a need
to maintain a balance between one’s right to information, the right to publish information, and
another’s right to privacy to keep one’s matters confined to oneself. It has also been established
that, though the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberties
under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions. In
the new age of technology, where the personal data of individuals is being extensively used by
state and non-state entities, it has become imperative to protect the data of individuals from
theft and other data breaches. The Puttaswamy Judgement has played a pivotal role in
recognising the right of informational privacy of the individual.

S. CHARAN
8) EXAMINE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE RIGHT TO BROADCAST AND
TELECAST.

Topic Explanation
5.2.1. Freedom of speech and right to broadcast and telecast.
[Link]. Constitution and freedom of speech and expression -

Freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed by Indian constitution under article 19(1) (a).
The people of India have given themselves the constitution of India which secure to all its
citizen liberty of thought and expression. Preamble is reflected in art 19 (1) (a) given in the
Part III of the constitution which deals with the fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are
those rights which cannot be curtail by the government except due procedure of law. In case
of violation of these rights an aggrieved person can approach directly to the Supreme Court
under Article 32 or to the High court under Article 226 for the restoration of these rights and
remedies as required for justice.
Extensive scope of this right is as much as Article 21 of the constitution i.e. Right to life and
liberty because a right to life and liberty cannot be fully exercisable without exercise of right
to speech and expression. The right as per Article 21 without the right under Article 19 (1) (a)
makes a human being as a slave. Who does not have a right to speech or express himself.
Hence right to speech and expression is essential as equal to right to life and liberty to express
him fully.
Nevertheless, this right has limited scope as it is available to citizens only. Only Citizens can
exercise this right. This right is not available to foreigner, idol, corporation, legal entity etc,
only a natural born person can exercise this right. This non-natural entity can excuse this right
under the veil of manager or owners of a company those who are citizen of India. When one
citizen exercise his Right to speech and expression, it shall not violet the others right to speech
and expressions means his exercise of this right shall not extend to cause harm to another’s
right to speech and expression a since civilization and other fundamental rights.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India34 held that
the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the
right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India
but abroad also. Article 19(2) have provided restriction on article 19(1) (a). It is not absolute
right. Article 19(2) have provided restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. The right
to freedom of speech and expression is subject to limitations imposed under Article 19(2) i.e.
morality obscenity etc. these can be imposed only by making legislation and not by judicially.
This is regarding healthy survival of democracy that one should not encroach over the others
right. Freedom of speech and expression means and includes express one’s views,
opinions, ideas timely by words of mouth, Privilege pictures signs gestures etc. or through any
communicable medium audio or visual i.e. radio television broadcasting or by way of
publication and circulation i.e. newspaper, magazines, articles, book etc. press is one of the
way propagation of ideas and hence coming under art.19. (1) (a). i.e. Press broadcasting, right
to protest, right to criticize, film, advertisement, etc.

S. CHARAN
[Link]. Freedom of speech: Print Media, broadcasting and telecasting.

It is necessary to mention here that, this freedom under Article 19(1) (a) is not only confined
to newspapers and periodicals but also includes pamphlets, leaflets, handbills, circulars and
every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. Forms of free
speech include the use of symbols, orderly public demonstrations, and radio and television
broadcasts. Freedom of speech is an essential characteristic of a constitutional democracy
because by exercising this right, individuals can communicate opinions both to other citizens
and to their representatives in the government. Through this free exchange of ideas,
government officials may become responsive to the people they are supposed to represent.

[Link].1. Freedom of speech and Print Media

Although Article 19 of the constitution of India does not express provision for freedom of
press but the fundamental right of the freedom of press implicit in the right the freedom of
speech and expression. In the famous case Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union
of India35, court observed the importance of press very aptly. Court held in this case that “In
today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press
has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education
possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where television and other
kinds of modern communication are not still available for all sections of society. The purpose
of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a
democratic electorate [Government] cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being
purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry
material which would not be palatable to Governments and other authorities.” The Freedom
of Press and the Freedom of Expression can be regarded as the very basis of a democratic form
of government. Every business enterprise is involved in the laws of the nation, the state and
the community in which it operates. Where as In Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras36, entry
and circulation of the English journal “Cross Road”, printed and published in Bombay, was
banned by the Government of Madras. The same was held to be violative of the freedom of
speech and expression, as “without liberty of circulation, publication would be of little value”.
Freedom of Speech and expression means the right to express one’s own convictions and
opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. It thus
includes the expression of one’s idea through any communicable medium or visible
representation, such as gesture, signs, and the like. This expression connotes also publication
and thus the freedom of press is included in this category. Free propagation of ideas is the
necessary objective and this may be done on the platform or through the press. This
propagation of ideas is secured by freedom of circulation. Liberty of circulation is essential to
that freedom as the liberty of publication. Indeed, without circulation the publication would be
of little value. The freedom of speech and expression includes liberty to propagate not one’s
views only. It also includes the right to propagate or publish the views of other people;
otherwise this freedom would not include the freedom of press.

S. CHARAN
The media derives its rights from the Fundamental Right to free speech and expression
guaranteed to every citizen under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. There are two facets to
the legal rights involved. One is media’s own rights under Article 19 (1) (a) which it enjoys
like any other citizen. The Supreme Court has held in successive judgments on press freedom
that the media has no special rights, no higher than that of any citizen. If it enjoys any special
position, it is in the nature of a public trustee, entrusted with the duty of facilitating the right
to information guaranteed to the citizens. The second facet of media rights is, therefore, the
right to collect and transmit to the citizen information of public importance.

[Link].2. Freedom of speech and broadcasting

This right also coming under the purview of right to freedom of speech and expression. with
the advent of satellite technology broadcasting is the way to disseminate the views, opinions
information via television, internet news channel etc. this right cannot be fully exercise without
dissemination of information though broadcasting. Supreme Court has held that this right is a
fundamental right subject to article 19(2). Explaining the scope of freedom of speech and
expression Supreme Court has said that the words “freedom of speech and expression” must
be broadly constructed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by words of mouth or
in writing or through audiovisual instrumentalities. It therefore includes
the right to propagate one’s views through the print media or through any other communication
channel e.g. the radio and the television. Every citizen of this country therefore has the right
to air his or their views through the printing and or the electronic media subject of course to
permissible restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

[Link].3. Freedom of speech and telecasting.

There are hundreds of Televisions (hence forth T.V.) channel in Indian. They are playing a
great role to educate people and generate the public opinion. T.V news channels has a great
impact a mind of people and may help change his view is after watching certain programme
on T.V channels. Most of the T.V channels are operated from foreign land; with the help of
satellite, they are telecasting the news and T.V serials. The satellite communication boosted
the Radio and Television broadcasting. After the Hero cup37 judgment in 1994 India is marked
as top most market for telecasting. With the advent of satellite world became a Global village.
In India more than 500 T.V channels are available to Indian viewer from domestic as well as
foreign private broadcasters. Today television is not limited to urban area, we can easily find
out it in rural area also i.e. telecasting in T.V set, video conferencing can join any two parts in
the world or country within a minute and we are more nearer to each other by using of internet
facility. Broadcasting is one of the medium to exercise the right to speech and expression.
Without adopting the technology of broadcasting no nation can make progress in the present
era.
Right to freedom of speech and expression include publication, printing, circulation etc.
broadcasting is play a role to circulate, disseminate information to large number of masses
which is sine que none to exercise the right to freedom of speech and expression. Broadcasting
is a way to disseminate the views opinion information via television, internet, and news
channel etc. i.e. we can sec a live telecast of cricket match or news from England it is possible
only through broadcasting. This communication mode also play very important role by
S. CHARAN
creating awareness of social issues or by education notes. Every citizen have right to air his
views ,opinion through the printing or electronic media subject to reasonable restriction
provided under art 19(2) case laws.(Hero cup case) If we want to give a massage to larger
population then we can do it easily through radio or television. It is possible only because of
broadcasting of massage through satellite. It shows that how broadcasting is very much
important to disseminate information and exercise the tight to speech and expression.
Broadcasting help to provide a massage to larger population and it is left to people what to do
with them, now the replay system is developed by which people can answer the question with
the use of internet or 3G systems. Right to broadcast is a fundamental right coming under the
umbrella of right to speech and expression u/Art 19(1) (a). (Sakal paper38 case) Hence the
entire constitutional safeguard provided to other fundamental right are also provided to this
right also. There can be no doubt that the freedom of speech and expression
includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom is ensured by freedom of circulation
it has also given liberal contention to fulfill the object behind art 9(1)(a) hence broadcast also
coming under the purview of Art.19(1)(a). (Ramesh thapper39 case.) Right to speech and
expression includes publication dissemination writing circulation etc, and broadcasting is way
to exercise these things hence it is essential to exercise this right.

Broadcasting is the distribution of audio and video content to a dispersed audience via any
audio-visual medium. Receiving parties may include the general public or a relatively large
subset of thereof. It could also be for purposes of private recreation, non-commercial exchange
of messages, experimentation, self-training, and emergency communication such as amateur
(ham) radio and amateur television (ATV Broadcasting is the distribution of audio and video
content to a dispersed audience via any audio-visual mode degum. Receiving parties may
include the general public or relatively large subject of thereof it could also be for the purpose
of private recreation, non-commercial exchange of massages.
This right has wide scope subject to article 19(2) which provides a reasonable restriction on
right to speech and expression regarding morality decency security etc, broadcasting at
presently coming under the ministry of information and broadcasting govt. of India. There is
Prasar Bharati Act 1990 which are also formed a rules and regulation for broadcasting. the
new draft bills 2007 is still pending which envisage to make changes in present system and
policy related to broadcasting no one can broadcast or telecast any news or film etc.
which is a against any of the provision mention u/art 19(2). Definition of Broadcasting under
section 2 (c) of the Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation Of India) Act, 1990 -”
broadcasting means the dissemination of any form of the communication like sign, signals,
writings, pictures, images sound of all kinds by transmission of electromagnetic waves through
space or through cables intended to be received by general public either directly or indirectly
through the medium of relay, stations and all its grammatical variation and cogent expression
shall be construed accordingly.” Broadcasting is the process of sending information to distant
places is called broadcasting but whereas telecasting refers to broadcast the programs on
television i.e. the broadcasted information.
The term ‘broadcast media’ covers a wide spectrum of different communication methods such
as television, radio, newspapers, magazines and any other materials supplied by the media and
press. Definition of broadcasting is wide enough to cover not only traditional broadcasting but
also internet broadcasting as well as mobile broadcasting. However, the broadcasting services
listed in the Bill are traditionally under the administrative and regulatory.
S. CHARAN
[Link]. Reasonable Restrictions

The freedom of speech and of the press does not confer an absolute right to express without
any responsibility. Lord Denning, in his famous book Road to Justice, observed that press is
the watchdog to see that every trial is conducted fairly, openly and above board, but the
watchdog may sometimes break loose and has to be punished for misbehaviour. With the same
token Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose
reasonable restrictions on free speech under following heads:
1. security of the State,
2. friendly relations with foreign States,
3. public order,
4. decency and morality,
5. contempt of court,
6. defamation,
7. incitement to an offence, and
8. Sovereignty and integrity of India.
Reasonable restrictions on these grounds can be imposed only by a duly enacted laws and not
by executive action. The restriction must be reasonable. In other words, it must not be extreme
or disproportionate. The procedure and the manner of imposition of the restriction also must
be just, fair and reasonable.

OR

Indian constitution has provided the Indian citizens with fundamental rights and one of these
rights is Right to free speech and expression which is covered under article 19(1)(a). The right
to free Speech and expression is also expanding and evolving with the developing modes of
communications.
Broadcasting is also a recently developed and effective mode of communication like internet
and other e-communications so, it is also covered under article 19(1)(a).
Evolution of Broadcasting Laws in India:
The introduction of broadcasting technology in India occurred before independence, and as a
result, the laws governing wireless and radio transmission predate the establishment of an
independent Indian government.
Pre Independence:
The Telegraph Act, 1885 was the first piece of legislation of significance. Government control
over the installation, upkeep, and operation of wireless equipment was granted by this statute.
The central government of India shall have the sole right to establish, maintain, and operate
telegraphs, said the act.

S. CHARAN
The Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 was passed in 1933 to address the situation of radio
receivers and wireless operators, who were not covered by the Telegraph Act of 1885. The new
law made using a radio set without a licence illegal.
Radio was the only form of broadcasting at first. The Indian Broadcasting Company, founded
in 1927, launched the nation's first radio service, operating stations in Bombay, Calcutta, and
Lahore until going out of business in March 1930. Soon after, the Government of India
assumed direct control over broadcasting, and the service designated as the Indian state
broadcasting service started transmitting. By 1932's end, the British broadcasting service
started transmitting to the empire. This shows that in the earlier days the government had the
monopoly over the broadcasting.
Post-Independence:
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulates the tariffs payable to subscribers
of television channels and service providers in the broadcasting sector. According to the
Broadcast Audience Research Council, over 197 million Indian households had a television
connection in 2019. As of July 31, 2020, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
(MIB) had permitted 920 TV channels to operate. The television broadcast ecosystem has three
stakeholders: broadcasters, distributors, and consumers. Broadcasters make content for TV and
distributors provide it to consumers using one of four technologies: cable, direct to home
(DTH), head-end in the sky (HITS) or internet protocol (IPTV).

Following are the cases when right to broadcast is recognized judicially:

Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sangatana:
The petitioner in this case objected to the airing of the Honi Anhoni television series on the
channel Doordarshan because he believed it promoted superstition and blind faith in the public.
As a result of the petitioner's inability to provide any evidence that could prove that the society
had suffered any harm, the petition was rejected.
The Supreme Court ruled that viewers have the freedom to show films on Doordarshan as long
as they abide by the channel's rules and regulations. In accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution, broadcasting is a part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and may
only be restricted within the terms of Article 19(2) that is reasonable restrictions on Article
19(1).
The court determined that this right is quite comparable to a citizen's freedom to express his
or her opinions through any other medium, such as newspapers, periodicals, holdings for
advertisements, etc.
LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah:
Right to broadcast was also recognized in this case. The challenge in this case was
Doordarshan's reluctance to air the documentary "Beyond Genocide" about the Bhopal gas

S. CHARAN
tragedy." Doordarshan declined to air the movie for a number of reasons, including that it was
out of date, no longer relevant, lacked moderation and restraint, was unfair and unbalanced,
political parties were bringing up a number of issues related to the tragedy, the victims' claims
for compensation were still pending, the movie would likely stir up trouble in an already tense
environment, and it criticised the state government's actions.
The Supreme Court ruled that Doordarshan, a state-controlled organisation that relied on
public finances, was not permitted to refuse to air the movie since it was unable to present a
convincing justification under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, upholding the right to
broadcast.
The Secretary, Ministry of Information v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr:
The cricket association's right to offer television rights to a particular agency was at issue in
this case. According to article 19(1)(a), the right to be amused and to be amused, in this case
via broadcast media, is an essential aspect of freedom. This freedom depends in large part on
the circulation and dissemination of knowledge, and television, which has the largest audience
possible, is a crucial medium for communication.
The Supreme Court held that broadcasting is a means of communication and the medium of
speech and expression within the framework of article 19(1)(a). The court continued by ruling
that the telecaster's right was restricted because it depended on the use of the airwaves, a
common property resource. Free access is limited by the airwave spectrum that is available.
Government organisations may lawfully place restrictions on transmissions based on the
accessibility of the airwaves as well as the justifications provided under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution. This restriction was not applicable because the viewers' fundamental right to
information, education, and entertainment was upheld.

Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan:

This case arose when Doordarshan refused to telecast respondent's documentary film titled
Father, son and Holy war. The documentary was the third of a respondent-produced trilogy
that addressed communal violence. Doordarshan declined to show the preceding films despite
the fact that they had won national prizes, claiming that doing so would lead to law-and-order
issues.
The first two movies, whose telecast had been rejected by Doordarshan, were the ones to which
the respondent was successful in his challenge. The High Court's order mandating the telecast
of the movie was affirmed by the Supreme Court. It stated that because Doordarshan is a state-
controlled organisation supported by public funds.
It is unable to reject the respondent's request to air a documentary film unless there are
conditions which are laid down in Article 19(2). Since Doordarshan is a national broadcaster
and has power over the public's airwaves, it is required to air a movie that addresses social
injustices including caste, class, and violence against women.
S. CHARAN
All the above cases show that Right to broadcast is a fundamental right covered under Article
19(1)(a) of the constitution. Since, it deals with public at large so there are also laws for
regulating it and they have evolved with time.
Conclusion:
We have seen that broadcasting is acknowledged as a fundamental right provided to every
citizen by the Supreme Court of India through many landmark cases. Although right to
broadcast an fundamental right still it is a powerful tool so there have been many laws to
regulate it and they have kept on evolving from Telegraph Act 1855 to IT (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
It has evolved from regulating telegraph to regulating OTT platforms on the internet. This is
not the end of this evolution as the society and technology is still continuously evolving and
so will the laws to regulate them to meet the latest requirement of the society.

[Link]
[Link]#google_vignette

S. CHARAN