19(1)a

1. Sakal press v. UOI

2. Bennett coleman v. UOI

19(2) Reasonable Restrictions

Security of state and Public order

1. Romesh thapar v. State of Madras – Crossroad magazine restricted by govt.,SC held

otherwise.
2. Babulal parate v. State of Maharashtra- Instigation for possible riot comes under reasonable
restriction

Friendly relation with foreign state

Decency or Morality

1. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra – SC held obscene material can be curtailed by19(2)

Contempt of Court

1. S. Mulgaokar Case – In indian express wrote against J. M.H.BEG, SC held criticism of a

judgement is not contempt of court.

Defamation

1. Shreya Singhal v. UOI – sec.66(a)of IT Act is violating 19(1)a

Incitement to an offence

1. Sedition

19(1)b and 19(3) Right of assembly ;peacefully and without arms

1. Saiyid Manzur Hassan v. Saiyid Mohammed zaman – Take out procession is implicit of
freedom to assemble.Right to take religious procession along highway can be done without
obstructing general public use.
2. Himmat lal k. shah v. Commissioner of police – SC held that comm. Have right to make rules
and regulate assembly and procession.

19(1)c and 19(4) Right to Form Association and Union

1. State of Madras v. V.G.Rao- Govt. notification to declare association unlawful withour

judicial review provision heldnot to be reasonable restriction.Relief granted to v.g rao.
2. O.K Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph – Restriction to form assoc. by govt. on govt. servants held invalid
by SC.

19(1)d and 19(5) Right of Movement

1. State of M.P v. Bharat singh - Govt passed order to restrict person to reside in such place
specified by govt. Restriction to be held unreasonable and void by SC as no provision to
provide any residence or maintenance or means of livelihood when removed from place.
2. A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras – Personal liberty case; Preventive detention challenged but
court held that it could be because of conspiracy or overthrow the govt. hence it do not
constitute movement.
 3. State of UP v. Kaushalya-If reasonable restriction are made to restrict the movement of
prostitute it is held as reasonable restriction.

19(1)e and 19(5) Right to residence

1. Dhan bahadur ghorti v. State of Assam – Custom prevailing in triabl area restricting foreigner
and nepali from staying in the area without permission of Deputy commissioner was held
valid under Art. 19(5).

19(1)g Right of trade and occupation

1. Sodan singh v. New delhi municipal committee – Hawking and trading business on public
street is covered under Art.19(1)g.
2. T.M.A Pai foundation v. State of Karnataka-Court held imparting of education is occupation.
3. PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra- Court held educational institute established for the
purpose of charity or profit, being an occupation is protected under 19(1)g.
4. Society of unaided pvt. Schools of rajasthan v. UOI-court upheld RTE ACT, 2009
5. State of bombay v. R.M.D Chamarbaugwala – gambling is not a profession and reasonable
restriction can be put.