Article 19 Freedoms

AS.Ramachandra/MCR HRD IT- HYD

 Introduction
• Personal Liberty is the most important of all
fundamental rights. Articles 19 to 22 deal with different
aspects of this basic right.The 6 freedoms are:-
a. Freedom of Speech and Expression.
b. Freedom of Assembly.
c. Freedom to form Associations or Unions or Co-
operative Societies.
d. Freedom of movement.
e. Freedom to reside and to settle.
f. [***]
g. Freedom of profession, occupation, trade or business.
 Restrictions on Freedoms
• These ‘six freedoms’ are however, not absolute.
Absolute individual right cannot be guaranteed by
any modern State. The restriction which may be
imposed under any of the clauses must be
reasonable restriction. The restrictions cannot be
arbitrary. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally
valid must satisfy the following two tests:-
1. The restriction must be for the purposes
mentioned in clause 2 to 6 of Article 19;
2. The restriction must be a reasonable restriction.
The restriction on the rights under Article 19(1) can
only be imposed by a ‘Law’ and not executive or
departmental instructions.
 Guidelines for determining the reasonableness
1. It is the courts and not the Legislature which has to judge
finally whether a restriction is reasonable or not.
2. The term “reasonable restriction” in Article 19(6) connotes
that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of
his right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature,
beyond what is actually required in the interests of the
public.
3. There is no exact standard or general pattern of
reasonableness that can be laid down for all cases. EACH
CASE IS TO BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERIT.
4. The restriction must be reasonable from the substantive as
well as procedural stand point. The court should consider
not only the duration and extent of the restriction but also
the circumstances under which, and the manner in which
that imposition has been authorised.
 Guidelines for determining the reasonableness
5. A restriction which is imposed for securing the objects and
laid down in the Directive Principles of State Policy may be
regarded as reasonable restriction.
6. The court must determine the reasonableness of a
restriction by objective standard and not by subjective
one. In other words, the question is not if the court feels the
restriction to be reasonable but where a normal reasonable
man would regard the restriction to be reasonable.
7. A restriction to be reasonable must have a rational relation
with the object which the Legislature seeks to achieve and
must not be in excess of that object. The grounds for which
the Legislature can impose restriction are mentioned in
clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19.
 Guidelines for determining the reasonableness
8. It is the reasonableness of the restriction which is
to be determined by the court and not the
reasonableness of the law.
9. Restrictions may also amount to prohibition
under certain circumstances. Thus, a law depriving
a citizen of his fundamental right may be regarded
as reasonable restriction, if it prohibits him to carry
out dangerous trades such as that of trade in
liquor or cultivation of narcotic plants or trafficking
in women. But where a restriction reaches the
stage of prohibition, special care has to be taken
by the Court to see that the test of
reasonableness is satisfied.
 Right available to ‘Citizens’ only
• The rights granted by Article 19 are available only to
citizens and not to an alien or a foreigner.
• A corporation or a company cannot claim a right under
Article 19 because they are not natural persons.
‘Citizens’ under Article 19 mean only natural persons
and not legal persons, such as corporations or
companies. But now there appears to a change in the
judicial attitude on this point. In Bank Nationalisation
case and the Newspapers case, the court has held that
though a company cannot claim a right under Article
19, yet its shareholder can claim the rights guaranteed
by Article19, if by the State action the rights of the
company as well as of the shareholders is impaired. The
fundamental rights of shareholders as citizens are not
lost when they associate to form a company.
 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 ideas through any
communicable medium or visible representation,
such as, gesture, signs and the like.
• 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 the press
 Right to Know
• In sum, the fundamental principle involved here is
the people’s right to know.
• In Prabhu Dutt v. Union of India(1982), the
Supreme Court has held that the right to know
news and information regarding administration of
the government is included in the freedom of
press, But this right is not absolute and restrictions
can be imposed on it in the interest of society and
the individual from which the press obtains the
information.
 Telephone Tapping – Invasion on right to privacy
• In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India(1995): Telephone tapping violates Art.
19(1)(a) unless it comes within grounds of
restrictions under Art. 19(2). The freedom means
the right to express one’s convictions and opinions
freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture,
or in any other manner. When a person is talking
on telephone he is exercising his right to freedom
of speech and expression. Telephone tapping
unless comes within the grounds of restrictions
under Art. 19(2) would violate Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.
 Demonstration or “Picketing”
• Demonstration or picketing are visible manifestation of
one’s ideas and in effect a form of speech and
expression. Demonstrations or picketings are
protected under Article 19(1)(a) provided they are not
violent and disorderly. It has been held that there is no
fundamental right to resort to strike. Right to strike is
not included within the ambit of freedom of speech.
• Picketing is a form of protest in which people
(called pickets or picketers) congregate outside a place
of work or location where an event is taking place.
Often, this is done in an attempt to dissuade others
from going in ("crossing the picket line"), but it can also
be done to draw public attention to a cause.
 Shaheen Bagh Protests

• Following the initial hearings, on 17 February,

the Supreme Court appointed three mediators
to initiate conversations with the protesters
regarding shifting to a location which wouldn't
block a public place. In response to the batch
of petitions filed against the protestors, the
Supreme Court of India stated on 7 October
2020 that the "indefinite" occupation of public
space for protest or expressing dissent was
not acceptable
 Freedom of the press
• The fundamental right of the freedom of the press
implicit in the right to freedom of speech and
expression, is essential for political liberty and
proper functioning of democracy.
• However, the Court clarified that this does not
mean that press is immune either from taxation or
from general law relating to industrial relations or
from the State regulation of condition of service of
its employees.
 Prior-restraint on publication of defamatory
material against its officials
• Auto Shankar case.- In R. Rajagopal v. State of
T.N(1994)., the Supreme Court has held- The
Government has no authority in law to impose a
prior-restraint upon publication of defamatory
material against its officials. Public authorities who
apprehend that they or their colleagues may be
defamed, cannot prevent the Press from
publication of such material, but they can take
action for damages after the publication of such
material on the proof of publication based on false
facts. No action can be initiated against the press if
the publication was based on public records
including court of records.
Freedom of speech includes freedom of silence
• National Anthem Case (1986):In this case, the three children
belonging to jehovah’s witnesses were expelled from the
school for refusing to sing the national anthem. The circular
issued by the Director of Public Instructions Kerala had made
it obligatory for students in the schools to sing the national
anthem. The children in this case stood up respectfully when
the national anthem was being sung at their school but they
did not join in singing it. They refused to sing the national
anthem as according to them it was against their religious
faith which does not permit them to join in any rituals
except in their prayer to Jehovah, their God. They challenged
the validity of their expulsion before the Kerala High Court
which upheld their expulsion as valid on the ground that it
was their fundamental duty to sing the national anthem. On
appeal, the Supreme Court held that there was no law under
which their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) could be
curtailed.
 Grounds of Restrictions. – Clause (2) of Article 19
a. Security of the State.
b. Friendly Relations with Foreign States.
c. Public Oder.
d. Decency or Morality.
e. Contempt of Court.
f. Defamation.
g. Incitement of an offence.
h. Sovereignty and integrity of India
 Security of the State
• In Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras(1950): Every
public disorder cannot amount to be regarded as
threatening the security of the State. The term
‘security of the State’ refers only to serious and
aggravated forms of public disorder, eg., rebellion,
waging war against the State, insurrection
(insurgency) and not ordinary breaches of public
order and public safely, 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
the State.
 Friendly relation with Foreign States
• No similar provision is present in any other
Constitution of the world.
• In India, the Foreign Relations Act, 1932
provides punishment for libel (defamatory
statement addressed to the eye) by Indian
citizen against foreign dignitaries.
 Public Order
• This ground was added by the Constitution (First
Amendment) act, 1951, in order to meet the
situation arising from the Supreme Court’s decision
in Romesh Thapper’s case. In that case, it was held
that ordinary or local breaches of public order
were no grounds for imposing restriction on the
freedom of speech, expression guaranteed by the
Constitution.
 Law and order, public order, security of State
• 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 causing unrest among workmen are offences
against public order
 Law and order, public order, security of State
• The largest representing law and order, the next
public order, and the smallest, the security of the
State. Every infraction of law must necessarily
affect law and order but not necessarily public
order and an act may affect public order but not
necessarily security of the State and an act may fall
under two concepts at the same time affecting
public order and security of the State. One act may
affect individual in which case it would affect law
and order while another act though of a similar kind
may have such an impact that it would disturb even
the tempo of the life of the community in which
case it would be said to affect public order, the test
being the potentiality of the act in question.
 Decency or morality
• The words “morality or decency” are words of wide
meaning. The word ‘obscenity’ of English law is
identical with the word ‘indecency’ under the
Indian Constitution. The test of obscenity is
‘whether the tendency of matter charged as
obscene is to deprave and corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral influences’ and
into whose hands a publication of this sort is likely
to fall (Pornography/ literature which encourages
revolt against the Government)
 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.
 Defamation
• A statement which injures a man’s reputation amounts
to defamation. Defamation consists in exposing a man
to hatred, ridicule or contempt. In India. Section 499 of
the I.P.C., contains the criminal law relating to
defamation. It recognizes no distinction between the
defamatory statement addressed to the ear or eyes,
i.e. slander and libel
• In English Law, the distinction is material for 2 reasons:-
1. Slander is only a civil wrong whereas a libel is both a
crime and a tort
2. Slander is actionable, save in exceptional cases, only
on proof of special damage. Libel is actionable per se.
• No such difference in India
 Integrity and sovereignty of India
• Sedition. – As understood in English law,
sedition embraces all those practices whether
by word, or writing which are calculated to
disturb the tranquility of the State and lead
ignorant persons to subvert the Government.
Thus the gist to the offence of sedition is
incitement to violence. Mere criticism of the
Government is no offence
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India(2015)
• Issues involved:
• 1) Whether Sections 66-A and 69-A of the IT
Act are constitutionally valid?
• 2) Whether Section 66A of IT Act is violative of
fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression?
 66A. Punishment for sending offensive
messages through communication service, etc.
Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a
communication device,—
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing
character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of
causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury,
criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by
making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of
causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the
addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and with fine.
 Petitioner’s Argument:
1. Article -66A of IT Act 2000 infringes the right of Freedom of
Speech and Expression as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Indian Constitution.
2. The petitioners argued that the causing of disturbance,
hassle and so forth are not covered under the reasonable
restrictions as expressed under Article 19(2) of the Indian
Constitution.
3. Section- 66A is vague in nature and infirmity has been
created by this section as it does not properly define the
terminology used under the section and it left the gates
open for interpretations of this section according to the
desire of the law enforcement agencies. Thus, the
limitation is absent and not provided by the section.
4. The section violates the Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution as there is no “Intelligible differentia”
5. The petitioners also argued that the section construed
arbitrary powers to the authorities for its interpretation.
 Respondent Argument:
1. It is the legislature who is responsible to meet the
requirements of people and the court is allowed to interfere
only in case of violation of Part-III of the Constitution. The
respondent argued that there is presumption in favour of
constitutionality of law in question.
2. It was contended that the probability of abuse of section
could not be a possible ground for declaring the section as
invalid.
3. The vagueness is not the ground to declare the statue as
unconditional when the statue itself is not arbitrary in
nature.
4. The contention of the Government was that Section 66A
could be supported under the heads of public order,
defamation, incitement to an offence, decency or morality.
 Judgment
• The court said: “Every expression used is
nebulous(vague/unclear) in meaning. What may be
offensive to one may not be offensive to another”.
Therefore, the interpretation was held to be
subjective in nature. Hence the court ordered 66A
as violative of right to freedom of speech and
expression and is not covered under the grounds of
reasonable restrictions given under Article 19(2).
The court also held that blocking of information for
public access given under Section 69A of IT Act is
constitutionally valid in nature.
 Section 69-A was held to be constitutionally valid
• Because- first and foremost, blocking can only be
resorted to where the Central Government is
satisfied that is necessary so to do. Secondly, such
necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects
set out in Article 19(2). Thirdly. Reasons have to be
recorded in writing in such blocking order so that
they may be assailed in a writ petition under
Article 226. The rules further provide for hearing
before a committee which looks into whether or
not it is necessary to block the information.
 Conclusion
• The court observed that the expressions used in
66A are completely open-ended and undefined and
it is not covered under Article 19(2) of Indian
Constitution. The approach adopted by the court
was to protect the fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression and in no way the legislation
can take away this right by claiming the shield
under Article-19(2) of the Constitution.
• Also, the court by applying the rule of severability
has struck down only those sections which were
vague and arbitrary in nature. The whole
legislation need not be held as invalid.
 Freedom of Assembly [Articles 19(1)(b) and 19(3)]
• The right of assembly thus includes right to hold
meetings and to take out processions. This right,
like other individual rights is not absolute but
restrictive. The assembly must be non-violent and
must not cause any breach of public peace. If the
assembly is disorderly or riotous then it is not
protected under Article 19(1)(b) and reasonable
restrictions may be imposed under clause (3) of
Article 19 in the interests if ‘sovereignty and
integrity of India’ or ‘public order’.
 Freedom to form Association [Articles
19(1) (c) and 19(4)
• Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India
guarantees to all its citizens the right “to form
associations or unions or Co-operative Societies”.
Under clause (4) of Article 19, however, the State
may by law impose reasonable restrictions on this
right in the interest of public order or morality or
the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• It thus includes the right to form companies,
societies, partnership, trade union, and political
parties. The freedom to form association implies
also the freedom to form or not to form, to join or
not to join, an association or union.
 Right of Association and Armed Forces
• In O.K.A. Nair v. Union of India(1976), an important
question arose whether “civilian” employees,
designated as ‘non-combatants’ such as cooks,
chowkidars, laskers, barbers, mechanics, boot-
markers, tailors, etc, attached to the Defence
Establishments have a right to form associations or
unions.
• The Supreme Court rejected the contentions of
the appellants and held that the civilian employees
of the Defence Establishments answer the
description of the members of the Armed Forces
within the meaning or Article 33 and, therefore,
were not entitled to form trade unions.
 Freedom of movement [Articles
19(1)(d) and 19(5)]
• Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution guarantees to its
citizens a right to go wherever they like in Indian
territory without any kind of restriction whatsoever.
They can move not merely from one State to another
but also from one place to another within the same
State. This freedom cannot be curtailed by any law
except within the limits prescribed under Article 19(5).
Reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement
on two grounds:-
1. In the interests of general public.
2. For the protection of the interest of Scheduled Tribes
 Freedom of Residence [Articles
19(1)(e) and 19(5)]
• According to Article 19(1)(e) every citizen of India
has the right “to reside and settle in any part of the
territory of India” However, under clause (5) of
Article 19 reasonable restriction may be imposed on
this right by law in the interest of the general
public or for the protection of the interest of any
Scheduled Tribe.
• The object of the clause is to remove internal
barriers within India or any of its parts. The words
“the territory of India” as used in this Article
indicate freedom to reside anywhere and in any
part of the State of India.
 Freedom of Residence
• It is to be noted that the right to reside and right to
move freely throughout the country are
complementary and often go together. Therefore,
most of the cases considered under Article 19(1)(d)
are relevant to Article 19(1)(e) also. This right is
subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law
in the interest of general public or for the
protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribes.
Freedom of Profession, occupation, Trade
or Business [Articles 19(1)(g) & 19(6)]
• Articles 19(1)(g) guarantees that all citizens shall have
the right “to practice any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business”. However, the right to
carry on a profession, trade or business is not
unqualified. It can be restricted and regulated by
authority of law. Thus the State can under clause (6) of
Article 19 make any law-(a) imposing reasonable
restriction on this right ‘in the interest of public’,(b)
prescribing professional or technical qualifications
necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on
any occupation, trade or business, (c) enabling the
State to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion
of citizens wholly or partially.
 Anuradha Bhasin v.Union of India(2020)
• In this case the Supreme Court held that the “freedom
to access the Internet” is a fundamental right and is
protected under Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech
and expression of the Constitution of India. The
Supreme Court observed that freedom of expression
and carrying on trade through the internet is
protected under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of
India. Justifying its observation the Supreme Court said
that the internet is also a very important tool for trade
and commerce. Therefore, the freedom of trade and
commerce through the medium of the internet is also
constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(g),
subject to the restrictions provided under Article 19(6).
 Government Doctors-No right of
private practice
• In Sukumar Mukherjee v. State of W.B(1993).,
the appellants challenged the validity of West
Bengal State Health service Act, 1990 on the
ground that it imposes unreasonable
restriction on their right to carry on any
occupation, trade or business under Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Those who join
the government service are bound by the
terms and conditions of service and will have
no right to private practice
 Hawkers Right to trade on pavement of roads
• In Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee(1995), a five
judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that hawkers have a
fundamental right to carry on trade on pavement to roads, but
subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the
Constitution. The petitioners who were poor hawkers were
carrying on business on the pavements of roads of Delhi and New
Delhi. They alleged that they were permitted by the respondent
Municipal authorities to carry on their business by occupying a
particular area on the pavements on payment of certain charges
described as Tehbazari, but they refused them to continue with
their trade and thereby they were violating their fundamental
right guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court held- The right to carry on trade
or business mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) on pavement of roads, if
properly regulated, cannot be denied on the ground that the
streets are meant exclusively for passing or re-passing and for no
other use. Proper regulation is, however, a necessary condition as
otherwise the very purpose of laying down roads to facilitate
traffic may be defeated.
 State Lotteries- Not trade or business
but gambling
• In B.R. Enterprises v. State f U.P(1999)., the
petitioners had challenged the validity of Lotteries
(Regulation Act, 1988, and the order passed by the
State of U.P. in exercise of power vested under
Section 5 of the Act banning sale of lottery tickets of
other States in the State of Uttar Pradesh as
violative of Art. 19(1)(g) and Arts. 301, 302 and 303
of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held – The
lottery contains an element of chance and therefore
cannot be trade or commerce but is gambling.
 Illegal or immoral profession
• The right to practice any “profession” does
not include right to carry on any illegal or
immoral profession. The State has right to
prohibit trades, which are illegal or immoral
or injurious to the health and welfare of the
public.
 Ban on pan Masala and Gutkha
• In Godawat pan Masala Products P.Ltd. v. Union of
India(2004), the petitioners challenged the constitutional
validity of notifications issued by the Food (Health) Authority
under Section 7 (iv) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act by which the manufacture, sale, storage and distribution
of Pan Masala and Gutkha containing tobacco were banned
for five years as violative of Art 19(1) of the Constitution.
They contended that the power to ban these products was
vested with the Central Government under the Cigarettes and
other Tobacco Products (Prohibition) of Advertisement and
Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and
Distribution) Act, enacted by Parliament.
• Restriction could have been on sale to under-aged persons
and not by way of total ban. It was therefore,
unconstitutional and invalid.
• However, Maharashtra banned and there is pending litigation
 Grounds of restrictions
• The right to carry on business, being a
fundamental right, its exercise is subject only to
the restrictions imposed by law in the interest of
the general public under Article 19(6)
• No right to carry on business at a particular
place: – There is no right to carry on business at a
particular place. The State may impose
reasonable restrictions in the interest of general
public. Thus a competent authority may
reasonably fix a place for a bus stand, a cinema
house, or a liquor shop.
 The closure of shops and
establishments for a day in a week
• The Punjab Trade employees Act, 1949, provided that
shops and establishments shall remain closed for a day
in a week. In Monohar Lal v. State of Punjab (1961), the
Supreme Court held the restriction to be reasonable
because the purpose of the Act was to improve the
health and efficiency of the workers who form an
essential part of the community and in whose welfare
the community was vitally interested. The contention
of the petitioner that the act did not apply to him
because he did not employ any other person and was
conducting the business himself was also rejected by
the Court.
 Unreasonable Restrictions
• In Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P.(1955) law authorised the
Government to prohibit all persons residing in certain areas
from engaging themselves in the manufacture of biri during
the agricultural season. The object of the law was to provide
adequate labour for agricultural purposes in biri-making
areas. The Supreme Court held- the law is invalid as it
imposes unreasonable restriction on the biri-making business
of the area. The Act is much in excess of the object which the
law seeks to achieve. It not only compels those who are
engaged in agricultural work from taking other vocation but
also prohibits persons such as infirm, disabled, old women
and children incapable of working as agricultural labourers
from engaging themselves in the business of biri-making
and thus earning their livelihood, hence it was arbitrary and
wholly unreasonable
 State Trading and Nationalisation
• Clause (6)(ii) enables the State to nationalise any
trade or business and carry it on itself to the
exclusion of all citizens wholly or partially.
• Thus the right of the citizen is constitutionally
subjected to the overriding right of the State to
create a monopoly in any trade or business.
Toolkit
 Introduction
• Tool Kit= Campaign plan
• The word- ‘Remand’ means to ‘hand-over’ or
‘order-back’
• Greta Thunberg(18)is a Swedish
environmental activist who is internationally
known for challenging world leaders to take
immediate action against climate change
 Transit Remand Order
• In practical terms, 'transit remand order' means on
order passed by a Judicial Magistrate remanding an
arrested person to police custody for the purpose of
his transit to another state. By issuing such a 'transit
remand order', the local Magistrate certifies that
the police personnel from the outside state had the
authority to arrest the person, and that such arrest
was done legally. Further, the local Magistrate
authorizes the other-state police to take the
arrestee out of his home state.
 Concept of 'transit remand’
• The concept of 'transit remand', though not expressly
mentioned in the CrPC, flows from Section 167 of the
CrPC and Article 22 of the Constitution of India, as per
which a person cannot be detained by the police for
over 24 hours without the authorization of a judicial
magistrate. With the aim of ensuring protection of the
personal liberty of an individual, the Courts have
evolved the concept of 'transit remand' in cases
where the person is to be taken out of state by police
from a different states. In such cases, the person
ought to be produced before the nearest Magistrate
soon after the arrest, and ought to be taken out of
the arrestee's home state only on the strength of a
'transit remand order' issued by such Magistrate
 Anticipatory transit bail

• When a person is apprehending arrest by the

police of a state other than where they are at
present, they approach the nearest competent
court for a transit anticipatory or pre-arrest bail.
The court does not have jurisdiction over the
place where the case is registered or where
crime has been alleged to have been committed
but since the question of personal liberty is
involved, the High Courts across India generally
allow such prayer depending upon the merits of
the case.
 Anticipatory transit bail
• The relief is sought to seek temporary protection
from arrest and simultaneously get time to
approach the appropriate court of that place,
wherefrom the police has come or where the case
is registered, for a similar pre-arrest bail
• Nikita Jacob Granted 3-week Transit Bail in Toolkit
Case
• The Delhi Police has accused climate activist Disha
Ravi, lawyer Nikita Jacob and her Shantanu Muluk
of conducting a “digital strike” by propagating the
Toolkit Doc to malign the image of India.
 Tool Kit= Campaign plan
• In simple terms, a toolkit is a collection of
resources for front-line workers engaged in a task
or campaign.
• A toolkit has become a handy tool in sustaining a
movement or campaign in times of social media
influences. It is a document created as an explainer
on an issue as a guide to everybody who is
associated with the campaign or can be roped in to
give a fillip to the campaign. It also provides a
roadmap of how to take forward the campaign or
agitation explaining what needs to be done, when
and how.
Disha Ravi case: What is a toolkit that
has brought activists under the lens?
• Bengaluru-based climate activist Disha Ravi,
21, is in custody of the Delhi Police for editing
and sharing a toolkit with globally known teen
anti-climate change campaigner Greta
Thunberg. Some others including activists
Nikita Jacob and Shantanu have also been
booked for coordinating with pro-Khalistan
outfit Poetic Justice Foundation (PFJ) in
connection with protest by farmers’ unions
over the new farm laws
 Greta Thunberg-toolkit
• In the present case, the toolkit became an accidental
disclosure when Greta Thunberg on February 5 shared a
Google document, a “toolkit, inadvertently. She deleted
the tweet later, but it became a headline
• The toolkit tried to “explain the farmers’ protests”
against the Narendra Modi government on the Delhi
borders over the farm laws passed by Parliament in
2020.
• “This is a document meant to enable anyone unfamiliar
with the ongoing farmers’ protests in India to better
understand the situation and make decisions on how to
support the farmers based on their own analysis,” the
toolkit reportedly said.
 Disha Ravi-Toolkit
• The investigation, the Delhi police said, found that
some pro-Khalistani elements were involved in
creating disaffection against the country. Disha
Ravi’s role figured in the probe, the Delhi police
said, as an “Editor of the Toolkit Google Doc”.
• Police have said those involved in creating the
toolkit document used a WhatsApp group to
discuss and prepare the draft in collaboration with
pro-Khalistan Poetic Justice Foundation.
• Disha Ravi, according to the Delhi police, shared
the toolkit with Greta Thunberg.
• 'Scanty and Sketchy Evidence': Delhi Court Grants
Disha Ravi Bail in 'Toolkit' Case(detained=Tihar jail)
Sedition Law Misused To Terrorise Young
Patriotic Indians; Time To Revisit S.124A

• Toolkit Case- Sedition Law Misused To Terrorise Young

Patriotic Indians; Time To Revisit S.124A: Delhi HC
Women Lawyers Forum Writes To Supreme Court

• The Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum has made

a representation before the Supreme Court, urging it to
revisit the Constitutional validity of Section 124A
(Sedition) of IPC, in light of alleged illegal arrest and
detention of climate activist Disha Ravi in connection
with the Greta Thunberg 'toolkit' case
 Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum
• "The recent events where a young environmental
activist Disha Ravi has been arrested by Delhi Police
in Bengaluru and brought to Delhi on February 14
without following any prescribed legal procedures
and without there being any apparent reason for
arrest, are appalling," the letter stated while
stressing that Disha has no criminal antecedent and
she was willing to cooperate with the investigation
and there is no evidence to suggest that she was
working with any banned organisations.