Why yoga guru Ramdev was held “guilty” of the contributory negligence by the Supreme Court in continuing his agitation in capital’s Ramlila Maidan last year after the government had imposed prohibitory order, the apex court in its answer has dealt with a wide spectrum of the right to freedom of speech and assembly as laid down in the Constitution and held that these rights are not “absolute” but subject to some reasonable restrictions.
A bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, which gave a 250-page verdict covering various aspects of individual’s liberty, including the freedom of speech and assembly listed in Article 19 of the Constitution, said the votaries of the freedom of speech generally “confuse” by mixing the American doctrine with the Indian constitutional scheme. But in the process they forget that unlike the US Constitution, our Constitution does not provide for “absolute freedom of speech”.
“In fact as per the constitutional mandate, the American doctrine as adumbrated in Schenck’s case cannot be imported and applied (in India). Under our Constitution, this right is not an absolute right but subject to some noticeable restrictions. Thus, the position under our Constitution is different,” the apex court said.
On why the freedom of speech was not made absolute under Article 19(1)(a), the Supreme Court said “if the State (Nation) has to survive, it must have power to protect itself against unlawful conduct and under some circumstances against ‘incitements’ to commit unlawful acts. Freedom of speech, thus, does not comprehend the right to speak on any subject at any time.”
The court pointed out that if Article 19(1)(a) talks about the right to freedom of speech and Article 19(1)(b) about the right to peaceful Assembly by the citizens without arms, but there are also Articles 19(2) and 19(3) inserted in the Constitution by its framers to “control” these two types of freedoms by making laws to impose “reasonable” restriction as permitted under the relevant clauses incorporated in latter two articles.
“Therefore, a restriction on the right to assembly and raise protest has also to be examined on the similar parameters and values. In other words, when you assert your right, you must respect the freedom of others. Besides imposition of the restrictions by the State, non-interference with the liberties of others is an essential condition for assertion of the right to freedom of speech and expression,” the court ruled.

***
Jaitley hails SC verdict on crackdown
Age Correspondent
NEW DELHI, FEB. 26

Hailing the Supreme Court’s recent judgement on the Ramlila Maidan crackdown case, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley said the judgement has “upheld the right to peaceful protest to a Constitutional right.”
The apex court had castigated the Delhi police and yoga guru Ramdev for the midnight violent incident at the Ramlila Maidan last year and had said that it was a “glaring example of trust deficit” between the people and the government.
Mr Jaitley, in an article on the judgement, said the apex court has given a “landmark” judgement which has observed that freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitation are the basic features of a democratic system.