17.Article 19, 20 and 21

Question 1

What is the Chilling Effect Doctrine?

Answer 1

The Chilling Effect Doctrine refers to the deterrent effect on freedom of expression caused by unwanted prohibitions or restrictions on free speech.

Question 2

Which cases emphasized the avoidance of a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression?

Answer 2

The cases of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal highlighted the importance of enacting laws in a manner that avoids a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression.

Question 3

What is the significance of Bennet and Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973) and Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) P. Ltd v. Union of India (1986)?

Answer 3

In these cases, the courts held that the right to freedom of speech cannot be taken away with the objective of restricting the business activities of citizens.

Question 4

When was the term “Chilling effect” first used as a legal term?

Answer 4

The term “Chilling effect” was first used as a legal term by Justice William Brennan in the case of Lamont v. Postmaster General in 1965.

Question 5

Why is free speech considered essential for democracy?

Answer 5

Free speech is considered essential for democracy because it allows individuals to express their opinions, engage in public discourse, and hold the government accountable.

Question 6

Can unwanted prohibitions on free speech be considered constitutional?

Answer 6

No, unwanted prohibitions on free speech are not considered constitutional as they infringe upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Question 7

Which countries have used the Chilling Effect Doctrine?

Answer 7

The Chilling Effect Doctrine has been used in the United States, Canada, and South Africa to analyze the impact of restrictions on freedom of expression.

Question 8

How did the courts in India address the issue of chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression?

Answer 8

The courts in India, through cases like R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, emphasized that laws should be enacted in a manner that avoids a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression.

Question 9

How is defamation defined in the Indian Penal Code?

Answer 9

Defamation is defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code as any spoken, written, or visual statement about another person intended to damage their reputation.

Question 10

What is the punishment for defamation according to the Indian Penal Code?

Answer 10

The punishment for defamation is outlined in Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It can be both a criminal offense, carrying a prison sentence, and a civil offense, punishable through the award of damages.

Question 11

What constitutes the offense of defamation?

Answer 11

The offense of defamation involves making false and damaging statements about another person, whether spoken, written, or visual, with the intention of harming their reputation.

Question 12

Is defamation only a criminal offense in India?

Answer 12

No, defamation is both a criminal offense, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, and a civil offense, which can lead to the award of damages in a civil court.

Question 13

What are the key issues concerning Article 19 in relation to defamation?

Answer 13

Defamation raises issues related to the right to freedom of speech and expression protected under Article 19. Balancing the right to freedom of expression with the need to protect individuals from defamation is a complex matter.

Question 14

How does the Indian Penal Code address defamation?

Answer 14

The Indian Penal Code includes specific provisions, Sections 499 and 500, that define defamation and establish penalties for committing the offense.

Question 15

Can you give an example of defamation?

Answer 15

An example of defamation would be making false and damaging statements about someone’s character, reputation, or integrity with the intention of harming their public image or causing them social or professional harm.

Question 16

What are the consequences of being found guilty of defamation in India?

Answer 16

If found guilty of defamation, the consequences can vary. It may result in imprisonment under the criminal offense or require payment of damages in a civil case, where the aggrieved party seeks compensation for the harm caused to their reputation.

Question 17

Who drafted Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

Answer 17

Thomas Babington Macaulay drafted Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1870.

Question 18

What was the purpose of including sedition laws in the IPC?

Answer 18

Sedition laws were initially included in the IPC as a means for British rulers to suppress dissent and control revolts against British rule.

Question 19

Which famous Indian nationalist leaders were involved in sedition trials?

Answer 19

Some of the famous Indian nationalist leaders involved in sedition trials include Jogendra Chandra Bose, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Mahatma Gandhi.

Question 20

Can you provide an example of a sedition trial involving an Indian nationalist leader?

Answer 20

One example is the trial of Jogendra Chandra Bose, the editor of the newspaper Bangobasi, who criticized the Age of Consent Bill in an article, which led to his sedition trial.

Question 21

What does Section 124-A of the IPC state?

Answer 21

Section 124-A of the IPC defines sedition and states that anyone who brings or attempts to bring hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government established by law in India, through words, signs, or other means, can be punished with imprisonment and a fine.

Question 22

Is sedition a bailable offense?

Answer 22

No, sedition is a non-bailable offense, meaning the accused cannot be released on bail before trial.

Question 23

What are the possible punishments for sedition under Section 124-A?

Answer 23

The punishment for sedition can range from imprisonment up to three years to a life term, along with a fine.

Question 24

How is sedition viewed in modern times?

Answer 24

Sedition laws are often considered outdated and anachronistic, reflecting a Victorian-era approach to suppressing dissent. Similar laws have been repealed in many post-colonial democratic jurisdictions around the world.

Question 25

Does Section 124-A of the IPC impinge on freedom of expression?

Answer 25

Yes, Section 124-A of the IPC is seen as an impingement on the freedom of expression, as protected by international human rights standards.

Question 26

What international obligations does India have regarding freedom of expression?

Answer 26

India is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects the freedom of expression as a fundamental right of all individuals. Section 124-A is considered to be in conflict with these obligations.

Question 27

What does Section 66A of the Information Technology Act specify?

Answer 27

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act provides punishment for sending offensive or false information through computer resources or communication devices, with the intent to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or harm.

Question 28

What are the offenses covered under Section 66A?

Answer 28

Section 66A covers offenses such as sending grossly offensive or menacing information, knowingly spreading false information to cause annoyance or inconvenience, and sending electronic mail or messages with the intent to deceive or mislead the recipient.

Question 29

What is the punishment for offenses under Section 66A?

Answer 29

The punishment for offenses under Section 66A can include imprisonment for up to three years and a fine.

Question 30

What types of messages does Section 66A target?

Answer 30

Section 66A targets messages that are grossly offensive or menacing, contain false information with the intention to cause annoyance or harm, and deceive the recipient about the origin of the message.

Question 31

What types of content are covered by Section 66A?

Answer 31

Section 66A covers any information or electronic record transmitted through computer resources or communication devices, including text, images, audio, video, and other electronic content.

Question 32

When was Section 66A amended and approved?

Answer 32

Section 66A was amended in 2008 and received Presidential assent on February 5, 2009.

Question 33

What is the objective of Section 66A?

Answer 33

The objective of Section 66A is to regulate and punish offensive and harmful messages sent through communication services, thereby ensuring public safety and preventing misuse of technology.

Question 34

What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case?

Answer 34

The Supreme Court declared section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional and struck it down.

Question 35

Why did the Supreme Court declare section 66A unconstitutional?

Answer 35

The Court found that section 66A was often misused to arrest innocent individuals for posting critical comments on social media, which violated the principles of liberty and freedom of expression. It also stated that the law was arbitrary, excessive, and disproportionately invaded the right of free speech.

Question 36

What did the Supreme Court say about the balance between freedom of expression and reasonable restrictions?

Answer 36

The Court noted that section 66A upset the balance between the right to freedom of expression and the reasonable restrictions that can be imposed on such rights. It emphasized that liberty and freedom of expression are fundamental to democracy.

Question 37

How did the Supreme Court describe the definition of offenses under section 66A?

Answer 37

The Court described the definition of offenses under section 66A as “open-ended and undefined,” suggesting that it lacked clarity and could be interpreted in a subjective and arbitrary manner.

Question 38

What test did the Supreme Court suggest for maintaining public order?

Answer 38

The Court suggested applying a clear and immediate danger test to maintain public order, implying that restrictions on freedom of speech should only be imposed when there is a direct and immediate threat.

Question 39

What were the cardinal pillars of democracy mentioned by the Supreme Court?

Answer 39

The Supreme Court identified liberty and freedom of expression as the cardinal pillars of democracy that were undermined by the arbitrary and excessive nature of section 66A.

Question 40

When did the United Nations General Assembly declare the Internet as a fundamental human right?

Answer 40

The United Nations General Assembly declared the Internet as a fundamental human right in 2017.

Question 41

Which court case recognized the Internet as a fundamental right under Article 21?

Answer 41

The High Court of Kerala recognized the Internet as a fundamental right under Article 21 in the Faheema Shirin Case in 2019.

Question 42

Who filed a petition in the Supreme Court regarding restrictions on the Internet and communication?

Answer 42

Anuradha Bhasin, the Executive Editor of Kashmir Times, filed a petition in the Supreme Court.

Question 43

What did the Supreme Court state in the Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India case regarding the Right to the Internet?

Answer 43

The Supreme Court held that the Right to the Internet is a fundamental right under Article 19. However, the government has the authority to restrict this right in the interest of maintaining law and order.

Question 44

What did the Court decide in the 4G Association Case regarding Internet speed and access?

Answer 44

The Court held that the government has the discretion to determine the speed and access to the Internet, such as whether it should be 2G or 4G, based on an assessment of law and order.

Question 45

How is the Right to the Internet described in terms of its fragility?

Answer 45

The Right to the Internet is considered a very fragile right, as it can be restricted or taken away by the government in the interest of maintaining law and order.

Question 46

Is the Right to Information (RTI) considered a part of Article 19?

Answer 46

Yes, the Court has held that the RTI is a part of Article 19 (1) (a).

Question 47

What has the Court stated about a citizen’s right to information and its connection to freedom of expression?

Answer 47

The Court has stated that a citizen has a fundamental right to use the best means of imparting and receiving information, which includes access to telecasting. The right to know is considered an intrinsic part of freedom of expression.

Question 48

Has the right to know invalidated Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act?

Answer 48

No, the right to know has not yet invalidated Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act of 1923, which prohibits the disclosure of certain official documents.

Question 49

Is there a formal legal definition of hate speech in India?

Answer 49

No, hate speech has not been defined in any law in India. However, certain legal provisions prohibit selected forms of speech as an exception to freedom of speech.

Question 50

Does India have a specific legal framework for dealing with hate speech?

Answer 50

India does not have a formal legal framework for dealing with hate speech. However, there are provisions in various laws, commonly referred to as hate speech laws, that address offenses against religions.

Question 51

Which section of the Indian Penal Code addresses hate speech?

Answer 51

Section 295-A of the IPC and other similar laws address the problem of hate speech in India. It defines and prescribes punishment for acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

Question 52

What did the Supreme Court state about hate speech in the Amish Devgan Case?

Answer 52

The Supreme Court held that historical truths must be discussed without disclosing or encouraging hatred or enmity between different classes or communities. Hate speech should primarily carry no meaning other than hatred towards a particular group.

Question 53

How does the Court determine if a speech is considered hate speech?

Answer 53

The Court requires an examination of good faith and good motives on the part of the speaker. Hate speech should have no redeeming purpose and should primarily carry no meaning other than hatred towards a particular group. The Court emphasizes not being overly sensitive to avoid being quickly offended.

Question 54

How does the term “liberty” relate to “freedom”?

Answer 54

The term “liberty” is a form of “freedom”. They are closely related concepts.

Question 55

What is the implication of responsibility and duty in the term “liberty”?

Answer 55

The term “liberty” relies heavily on the implication of responsibility and duty. It suggests that one’s actions should be guided by a sense of responsibility and duty.

Question 56

How does “freedom” differ from “liberty”?

Answer 56

In contrast to “liberty”, “freedom” means the raw ability to act and do as one wants. It is a more unrestricted concept.

Question 57

Which term, “freedom” or “liberty”, is more concrete?

Answer 57

“Freedom” is a more concrete concept than “liberty”. It refers to the state of having free will and the ability to act without constraints.

Question 58

What are the origins of the terms “liberty” and “freedom”?

Answer 58

“Liberty” comes from the Latin word “libertatem” which means “condition of a freeman”. “Freedom” comes from the English word “freedom” which means “state of free will”.

Question 59

What does Article 20 of the Indian Constitution protect?

Answer 59

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution protects individuals in respect of conviction for offenses.

Question 60

What is prohibited under Article 20 in terms of laws and convictions?

Answer 60

Article 20 prohibits the conviction of a person for any offense except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offense. It also prohibits subjecting a person to a penalty greater than what was applicable at the time of the offense.

Question 61

What does Article 20 say about double jeopardy?

Answer 61

Article 20 states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once. This principle is known as the protection against double jeopardy.

Question 62

What does Article 20 guarantee in terms of self-incrimination?

Answer 62

Article 20 guarantees that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This protects individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves.

Question 63

What are the three key provisions of Article 20?

Answer 63

The three key provisions of Article 20 are: 1) No ex-post facto law, 2) No double jeopardy, and 3) No self-incrimination.

Question 64

What is the meaning of “ex post facto”?

Answer 64

“Ex post facto” in Latin means “after the fact” or retrospective.

Question 65

How does an ex post facto law affect the legal consequences of acts committed?

Answer 65

An ex post facto law retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed, which means it can criminalize actions that were legal when committed or increase the punishment for those actions.

Question 66

What does Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution protect citizens from?

Answer 66

Article 20(1) protects citizens from being punished for an act that was legal when committed but later criminalized. It only applies to criminal laws and not civil laws.

Question 67

Which principles does Article 20(1) ensure?

Answer 67

Article 20(1) ensures the principles of natural justice, specifically the protection against retrospective criminalization and punishment.

Question 68

What other countries or constitutions have provisions against ex post facto laws?

Answer 68

The U.S. Constitution, Irish Constitution, Japanese Constitution, and the legal system in the United Kingdom all have provisions or practices that prohibit or frown upon ex post facto laws.

Question 69

What was the intent of the drafters of Article 20(1) in relation to the U.S. Constitution?

Answer 69

The drafters of Article 20(1), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Sri B.N. Rao, had the provisions of the U.S. Constitution in mind while drafting it. The U.S. Constitution also prohibits ex post facto laws.

Question 70

How has the Indian Supreme Court interpreted Article 20(1)?

Answer 70

In R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd, the Supreme Court held that Article 20(1) provides constitutional protection to individuals charged with an offense prohibited by law before a criminal court. In Jawala Ram v. PEPSU, the Court held that retrospective application of special rates for unauthorized use of canal water is not prohibited by Article 20(1).

Question 71

What does the principle of double jeopardy state?

Answer 71

The principle of double jeopardy states that no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.

Question 72

How is double jeopardy defined in Black’s Law Dictionary?

Answer 72

Black’s Law Dictionary defines double jeopardy as “a second prosecution after a first trial for the same offense.”

Question 73

What Latin principle is associated with double jeopardy?

Answer 73

The Latin principle associated with double jeopardy is “Nemo Debet Bis Puniri Pro Uno Delicto,” which means no man ought to be punished twice for the same offense.

Question 74

Are there any exceptions to the principle of double jeopardy in the case of a continuing offense?

Answer 74

Yes, in the case of a continuing offense that is continued day to day, each offense can be punished separately.

Question 75

What do Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and Section 300 of the CrPC state regarding double jeopardy?

Answer 75

Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897 states that an offender can be prosecuted and punished under either or any of the enactments if an act or omission constitutes an offense under two or more laws. Section 300 of the CrPC states that a person once convicted or acquitted cannot be tried for the same offense again.

Question 76

How does double jeopardy work in Britain and the United States?

Answer 76

In both Britain and the United States, double jeopardy rules operate, and a second trial is barred even if the accused has been acquitted in the first trial for that offense.

Question 77

When is the provision of double jeopardy applicable in India?

Answer 77

In India, the provision of double jeopardy is applicable when there has been a prosecution and punishment in the first instance but not in the second instance.

Question 78

What does the right against self-incrimination state?

Answer 78

The right against self-incrimination states that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Question 79

What principle does the right against self-incrimination follow?

Answer 79

The right against self-incrimination follows the principle of “Nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum,” which means “No man is obliged to be a witness against himself.”

Question 80

Is the right against self-incrimination applicable only during court proceedings?

Answer 80

No, the right against self-incrimination is also applicable during police investigations, as stated by the Supreme Court in the Nandini Sathpathy case.

Question 81

What guidelines were given by the Supreme Court in the Nandini Sathpathy case regarding the right against self-incrimination?

Answer 81

In the Nandini Sathpathy case, the Supreme Court provided the following guidelines:

*An accused cannot be influenced under any circumstances.
*The accused must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right against self-incrimination.
*The accused person has the right to legal counsel or legal recourse.
*Women should not be summoned to the police station for questioning.

Question 82

Why is Article 20(3) important in protecting the accused?

Answer 82

Article 20(3) is important in protecting the accused from unnecessary police harassment and ensuring their right against self-incrimination during investigations.

Question 83

What are some exceptions to Article 20(3) regarding the right against self-incrimination?

Answer 83

Some exceptions to Article 20(3) include giving thumb impressions, specimens, or any kind of identification, which are not covered by the protection. Polygraph tests require prior permission from courts. DNA profiling and similar methods are allowed for investigation purposes.

Question 84

Is Article 20 a non-derogable right during an emergency?

Answer 84

Yes, Article 20 is a non-derogable right, meaning it cannot be suspended even during an emergency.

Question 85

Can Article 20(3) be invoked during civil proceedings?

Answer 85

No, Article 20(3) should not be invoked during civil proceedings. It specifically applies to criminal proceedings.

Question 86

What was the ruling in the Selvi vs State of Karnataka case?

Answer 86

In the Selvi vs State of Karnataka case, the court held that narco-analysis tests, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping violate Article 20(3) as the answers obtained are not consciously and voluntarily given. These tests amount to testimonial compulsion and are a violation of the right to privacy.

Question 87

What is the stance of the U.S.A. and Britain regarding the right against self-incrimination?

Answer 87

In the U.S.A., the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides protection against self-incrimination. In Britain, under Common Law, a person accused of any offense shall not be compelled to disclose documents or objects that incriminate themselves.

Question 88

What does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution state?

Answer 88

Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.

Question 89

What rights are secured by Article 21?

Answer 89

Article 21 secures the right to life and the right to personal liberty.

Question 90

What was the ruling in the A K Gopalan vs State of Madras case?

Answer 90

In the A K Gopalan vs State of Madras case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of preventive detention. It held that the principle of natural justice was ignored, and Article 21 and Article 19 were to be read as separate codes. The court also held that its role was to check the validity of the law and not the intention of the parliament.

Question 91

What concept did the Court uphold regarding the procedure established by law?

Answer 91

The Court held that the procedure established by law is a valid concept, and the Courts can only check the validity of the law, not the intention of the parliament.

Question 92

What was the Court’s stance in the R C Cooper vs Union of India (Bank Nationalization Case)?

Answer 92

The Court’s attitude in the Bank Nationalization case was somewhat liberalized, and it held that laws should adhere to the principle of natural justice.

Question 93

What was the ruling in the ADM Jabalpur Case vs Shivkant Shukla (Habeas Corpus Case)?

Answer 93

In the Habeas Corpus Case, the Supreme Court upheld the detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. It overruled the views of various High Courts and held that no person had the right to move a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226.

Question 94

What was the key argument in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case?

Answer 94

The key argument in the case was that the “Right to Travel Abroad” is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and there is a connection between the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The petitioner challenged the impounding of her passport and denial of permission to fly abroad.

Question 95

What was the significance of the Maneka Gandhi v Union of India case?

Answer 95

The case led to the evolution of the concept of “Due Process of Law” in India. The Supreme Court held that the procedure established by law should be reasonable, fair, and just, and overruled the earlier AK Gopalan judgment. The court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity.

Question 96

What is the difference between “Procedure Established by Law” and “Due Process of Law”?

Answer 96

“Procedure Established by Law” refers to the law made by Parliament, and its reasonableness is not questioned. On the other hand, “Due Process of Law” requires that the law should be fair, reasonable, and just, and it should be in accordance with the principles enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.