Skip to content

CSEET · Business Laws and Management · Introduction to Law

A State Government passes an order stopping Ravi, a citizen, from publishing a newspaper article criticising a minister, without citing any ground permitted by the Constitution. Ravi files a petition directly in the Supreme Court. Which statement best describes the position?

Ravi can move the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, because freedom of speech is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). The State may restrict it only on the grounds listed in Article 19(2), and the order cited none.

  1. ARavi can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 because freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is a fundamental right, and restrictions must fall within the grounds in Article 19(2)Correct
  2. BRavi cannot approach the Supreme Court and must go only to the High Court, because Article 32 covers only Directive Principles
  3. CRavi has no remedy because free speech is only a Directive Principle
  4. DRavi can succeed only if Parliament first amends the Constitution to protect his speech

Explanation

Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). Reasonable restrictions are valid only on grounds listed in Article 19(2). Article 32 is itself a fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The option limiting him to the High Court is wrong, since Article 32 petitions lie directly.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Introduction to Law shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Introduction to LawFree diagnostic mock

More Introduction to Law questions