This event has been postponed due to some technical issues. All the participants will be informed of the dates when it starts. All the best!
Following are the rules that all the participants need to religiously follow in order to stay in the competition. Non-adherence or violation may result in disqualification without any prior notice.
No plagiarism/copy-pasting. The answers should be unique and in one's own words.
The minimum length of the answer has to be 100 words or more.
The quality and authenticity of each answer shall be analyzed by the LCI quality team individually and the decision of the quality team shall be final. Each qualified answer adds 2 points to your score.
Repetitive answers on the same thread would not add to your scorecard.
Participants have to answer only the unattended queries and not the ones that have already been resolved. The direct link to the unattended queries is here - click here
Plz, keep noting the links of the queries that you have answered so the scores can be matched if needed. To make it easier for us and safer for all, you can drop the links on - firstname.lastname@example.org at the end of the day.
Here is a sample answer for you all to follow - click here
(The legal provisions, case laws and link to an a related LCI article)
Any disrespectful or foul comment in the thread would attract disqualification. The decision of the LCI quality team shall be final.
You can add brownie points to your scorecard as well - Sharing the contest poster and tagging 2 friends (On any social media platform) will win you 10 points. Writing a judgment summary gets you 20 and an article gets you 30.
You can drop a mail at email@example.com in case of any query regarding the contest.
04 February 2010
It seems that Govt. has awaken today. The Congress party has tried to project Raj against Bal thakray so that their common votes may be divided and now when whole country is accusing him, now congress seems benefit to take action against him as was done in case of Sant jarnail Singh Bhindrawala.
04 February 2010
Public order as a ground of imposing restrictions was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. Public order in the present context is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility.
Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution says that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression. 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. Freedom of expression has four broad special purposes to serve: 1) It helps an individual to attain self-fulfillment. 2) It assists in the discovery of truth. 3) It strengthens the capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making. 4) It provides a mechanism by which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change. 5) All members of society would be able to form their own beliefs and communicate them freely to others.
In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is the people's right to know. Freedom of speech and expression should, therefore, receive generous support from all those who believe in the participation of people in the administration. It is on account of this special interest which society has in the freedom of speech and expression that the approach of the Government should be more cautious while levying taxes on matters of concerning newspaper industry than while levying taxes on other matters.
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.
Freedom to air one's view is the lifeline of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death knell to democracy and would help usher in autocracy or dictatorship. The modern communication mediums advance public interest by informing the public of the events and development that have taken place and thereby educating the voters, a role considered significant for the vibrant functioning of a democracy. Therefore, in any setup more so in a democratic setup like ours, dissemination of news and views for popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same must be frowned upon unless it falls within the mischief of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Grounds Of Restrictions
Clause (2) of Article 19 contains the grounds on which restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed :- 1) Security of State: Under Article 19(2) reasonable restrictions can be imposed on fredom of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. The term "security of state" refers only to serious and aggravated forms of public order e.g. rebellion, waging war against the State, insurrection and not ordinary breaches of public order and public safety, e.g. unlawful assembly, riot, affray. Thus speeches or expression on the part of an individual, which incite to or encourage the commission of violent crimes, such as, murder are matters, which would undermine the security of State.
2) Friendly relations with foreign states: This ground was added by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. The object behind the provision is to prohibit unrestrained malicious propaganda against a foreign friendly state, which may jeopardise the maintainance of good relations between India, and that state. No similar provision is present in any other Constitution of the world. In India, the Foreign Relations Act, (XII of 1932) provides punishment for libel by Indian citizens against foreign dignitaries. Interest of friendly relations with foreign States, would not justify the suppression of fair criticism of foreign policy of the Government. It is to be noted that member of the commonwealth including Pakistan is not a "foreign state" for the purposes of this Constitution. The result is that freedom of speech and expression cannot be restricted on the ground that the matter is adverse to Pakistan.
3) Public Order: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. 'Public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which prevails among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established."
Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 'Public order' is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility. The test for determining whether an act affects law and order or public order is to see whether the act leads to the disturbances of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or whether it affects merely an individual being the tranquility of the society undisturbed. Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Thus communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object of acausing unrest among workmen are offences against public order. Public order thus implies absence of violence and an orderly state of affairs in which citizens can peacefully pursue their normal avocation of life. Public order also includes public safety. Thus creating internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and public safety. But mere criticism of government does not necessarily disturb public order. In its external aspect 'public safety' means protection of the country from foreign aggression. Under public order the State would be entitled to prevent propaganda for a state of war with India.
The words 'in the interest of public order' includes not only such utterances as are directly intended to lead to disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder. Thus a law punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of persons is valid because it imposes a restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of public order since such speech or writing has the tendency to create public disorder even if in some case those activities may not actually lead to a breach of peace. But there must be reasonable and proper nexus or relationship between the restrictions and the achievements of public order.
4) Decency or morality: The words 'morality or decency' are words of wide meaning. Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of decency or morality. These sections prohibit the sale or distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is laid down till now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from time to time and from place to place.
5) Contempt of Court: Restriction on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed if it exceeds the reasonable and fair limit and amounts to contempt of court. According to the Section 2 'Contempt of court' may be either 'civil contempt' or 'criminal contempt.'
6) Defamation: A statement, which injures a man's reputation, amounts to defamation. Defamation consists in exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law in relating to defamation is still uncodified in India and subject to certain exceptions.
7) Incitement to an offence: This ground was also added by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right to incite people to commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or omission made punishable by law for the time being in force.
8) Sedition: As understood by English law, sedition embraces all those practices whether by words, or writing which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the State and lead ignorant person to subvert the government. It should be noted that the sedition is not mentioned in clause (2) of Art. 19 as one of the grounds on which restrictions on freedom of speech and expression may be imposed.
05 February 2010
Thackray is just a symptom - that of the prevailing political process. This could be realized if we go to the circumstances that gave rise to the genesis of Shiv Sena.
In the beginning, Shiv Sena was propped by the Congress party as a bulwark against the strengthening labour movement in Mumbai, especially in the Textile Industry. The end result was working class were lured by parochial interests, they were rendered militant. The exorbitant demands made by championed by pseudo-labour leaders led to the closure of the mills; so also the labour movement has become disoriented. This was just the beginning. Things have moved much beyond that.
The present political scenario is that we are virtually burdened with a pseudo political process. It is the essence of political process that people are awakened and led on an emotional plane. But the leaders should be rational and mature. They should not champion sectarian or parochial issues.
Unfortunately majority of the present day leaders lack the stature or the willingness to grow from mere leaders into statesmen. On the contrary, in the case of some promising politicians, we have and are witnessing the reverse process.
There is not much the Courts or the Constitution can do. Perhaps what is required is a restatement of the political process through a dispassionate revisit to the spirit in which our Constitution was enacted.