(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”
Other international conventions also impose similar restrictions. The Indian constitution, on its part, states in Article 19(2) -
“Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
Let us therefore examine each of the aforementioned criteria one by one:
i) Security of the State: All the utterances intended to endanger the security of the State by crimes of violence intended to overthrow the government, waging of war and rebellion against the government, external aggression or war etc., may be restrained in the interest of the security of the State.[7] It does not refer to the ordinary breaches of public order which do not involve any danger to the State, as was held in the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras[8].
ii) Friendly relations with foreign States: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act of 1951. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, if it tends to jeopardize the friendly relations of India with other countries.
iii) Public order: This ground came into existence as a result of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.In order to meet the situation arising from the Supreme Court’s decision in the Romesh Thapar case. The expression ‘public order’ connotes the sense of public peace, safety and tranquility.
In Kishori Mohan vs. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court explained the differences between three concepts: law and order, public order, security of State. Anything that disturbs public peace or public tranquility disturbs public order[9]. But mere criticism of the government does not necessarily disturb public order[10]. A law punishing the utterances deliberately tending to hurt the religious feelings of any class has been held to be valid as it is a reasonable restriction aimed to maintaining the public order[11].
It is also necessary that there must be a reasonable nexus between the restriction imposed and the achievement of public order. In Superintendent,Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohiya (AIR 1960 SC 633), the Court held the Section 3 of U.P. Special Powers Act, 1932, which punished a person if he incited a single person not to pay or defer the payment of Government dues, as there was no reasonable nexus between the speech and public order. Similarly, the court upheld the validity of the provision empowering a Magistrate to issue directions to protect the public order or tranquility.
iv) Decency and morality: The word ‘obscenity’ is synonymous with the word ‘indecency’ in the Indian Constitution. In an English case of R. vs. Hicklin[12], the test was laid down according to which it is seen “whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene tend to d