KSLU Solved Question Papers
Constitutional Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 3
2018 Dec (100 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 3 Constitutional Law I 2018 Dec (100 marks) Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2018 Dec (100 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2018 Dec (100 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2018 Dec (100 marks) examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 14 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer Q. No. 4 and 5 and any two of the remaining questions in Part - (2) 2. Answer Q. No. 9 and 10 and any two of the reamaining questions in Part - (3) 3. Marks are indicated against each question.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q4
Part 1
Q1Discuss the nature and scope of freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution of India with the help of decided cases.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the text of article 19(1)(a); why free speech matters; who may claim it; its scope, one aspect at a time, each with a decided case (the press and circulation, newsprint and taxation, information and the voter, silence, the internet); the limits in article 19(2) and the rule that they are exhaustive; prior restraint; a summary table; a conclusion.
The right and its importance
Article 19(1)(a) says that all citizens shall have the right "to freedom of speech and expression". Expression means communicating one's thoughts and opinions by any means: speech, writing, printing, pictures, films, signs or electronic media.
The freedom matters for three reasons.
- Democracy. People can choose their government wisely only if they can discuss public affairs freely.
- Truth. Open debate lets good ideas win over bad ones.
- Self-fulfilment. Expressing oneself is part of human dignity.
The freedom belongs to citizens. A company is not a citizen. But in Bennett Coleman & Co v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106, the Court held that shareholders, editors and directors who are citizens may enforce the right through their newspaper company. The newsprint policy there limited the pages of newspapers, and was struck down.
The words of article 19(1)(a) are short. Their wide meaning comes from the decided cases below. Each case added one more aspect to what the freedom protects.
1. Freedom of the press and of circulation
The Constitution does not mention the press separately, but freedom of the press is part of freedom of expression.
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124. Cross Roads was a weekly journal printed in Bombay. The Madras Government banned its entry and circulation in the State under a public safety law. The Supreme Court struck down the ban. It held that freedom of speech includes freedom of propagation of ideas, and that is secured by freedom of circulation. A ban on circulation strikes at the heart of the freedom.
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305. The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act 1956 fixed how many pages a paper could print for a given price. The aim was to protect small papers from bigger rivals. The Court held that the right extends to the volume of circulation, not only to the content. Reducing circulation to help small papers was not a ground in article 19(2), so the law was void.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515. Newspapers challenged a customs duty on imported newsprint. The Court held that the press is not immune from tax. But a tax that is so heavy that it cripples circulation would violate the freedom. The Court also said that speech cannot be restricted in the name of "public interest", because that is not a ground in article 19(2).
2. The right to know and the voter
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112. The question was whether voters were entitled to know about the criminal record and assets of candidates. The Court held that voting is a form of expression. A voter cannot express a real choice without basic facts about the candidates. So candidates must disclose their criminal cases, assets and education.
People's Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2363. Parliament then amended the election law to limit disclosure, and added section 33B to bar any further disclosure. The Court struck down section 33B. It held that the right to information is an integral part of article 19(1)(a).
3. The right to remain silent
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615. Three children who were Jehovah's Witnesses stood up respectfully at the school assembly but did not sing the National Anthem, as their faith forbade it. They were expelled under departmental circulars. The Court ordered them back to school. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. No law compelled anyone to sing the Anthem, and circulars without statutory force could not restrict a fundamental right.
4. Speech on the internet
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. People were arrested under section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 for posts on social media. The section punished messages that were "grossly offensive" or caused "annoyance" or "inconvenience". The Court struck it down entirely. The terms were vague, covered harmless speech and frightened people into silence. Only speech that amounts to incitement, as opposed to discussion or advocacy, can be punished.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, decided on 10 January 2020. Internet services were suspended in Jammu and Kashmir. The Court held that expression through the internet is protected by article 19(1)(a). Orders suspending the internet must be published, must be proportionate and temporary, and must be reviewed periodically.
5. Limits on the freedom
Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions only on eight grounds. Four relate to the State: its sovereignty and integrity, its security, friendly relations with foreign States, and public order. The other four are decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955. The Court upheld the offence of sedition in section 124A of the Penal Code only for speech that tends to incite violence or public disorder. Criticism of the Government, however strong, was protected. The Penal Code has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, which has no offence named sedition.
Amish Devgan v. Union of India, decided on 7 December 2020. The Court held that hate speech, which targets a group to provoke hostility, adds nothing to democracy and may be restricted.
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 3 January 2023. A Constitution Bench held that the grounds in article 19(2) are exhaustive. Courts cannot add new grounds by interpretation.
How reasonableness is judged. A restriction is reasonable only if it is proportionate. The court asks whether the restriction has a legitimate aim within article 19(2), and whether it is suitable to achieve that aim. It also asks whether a less drastic measure would have served, and whether the harm to free speech is out of proportion to the benefit. A vague law fails this test, because it catches lawful speech along with unlawful speech.
6. Freedom of the press and the courts
Fair reporting of court proceedings is part of the freedom of the press. But a court may, in rare cases, restrict publication to protect a fair trial. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1, a High Court judge forbade newspapers from publishing the evidence of a witness, who feared harm to his business. The Supreme Court held, by majority, that a court has inherent power to make such an order where justice requires it. As a judicial order made within jurisdiction, it could not be challenged as a breach of article 19(1)(a). Hidayatullah J. dissented.
7. Prior restraint
Brij Bhushan v. The State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129. The editor of the Organiser was ordered to submit communal matter for scrutiny before publication. The Court struck down the provision, because the ground relied on was not then in article 19(2). Censorship before publication is treated with special caution. It stops ideas before anyone has heard them, so it needs a clear law and strong justification.
Summary
| Aspect | Case |
|---|---|
| Circulation of ideas | Romesh Thappar |
| Volume of circulation and pages | Sakal Papers, Bennett Coleman |
| Tax on newsprint | Indian Express |
| Voter's right to know | ADR, PUCL |
| Silence | Bijoe Emmanuel |
| Online speech | Shreya Singhal, Anuradha Bhasin |
| Limits | Kedar Nath Singh, Amish Devgan, Kaushal Kishor |
Conclusion. Freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) has been given a very wide meaning. It covers the press, circulation, information, silence and the internet. It may be limited only by law, only on the grounds in article 19(2), and only reasonably. Through these decisions the Supreme Court has made free expression one of the strongest foundations of Indian democracy.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 3 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.