SPPU Solved Question Papers
Constitutional Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
Oct 2025 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Constitutional Law I Oct 2025 Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 6 November 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 Savitribai Phule Pune University. It is not affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune 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 Savitribai Phule Pune University at the Oct 2025 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Savitribai Phule Pune University set it at the Oct 2025 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Oct 2025 examination, reproduced as Savitribai Phule Pune University set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 70 · 13 questions answered
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.
SECTION I
PART A
Answer any two · 30 Marks
Q1)Explain the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression recognized in Article 19 along with the restrictions that can be validly placed on this right.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: article 19(1)(a) and what it includes (press, circulation, information, silence); the eight grounds in article 19(2); the rule that the grounds are exhaustive; the test of reasonableness; prior restraint; and the leading cases with facts.
Introduction
Article 19(1)(a) says that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Free speech is the base of democracy. People cannot choose rulers or criticise them without it. But the freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) lets the State make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on certain grounds only.
The right belongs to citizens. A foreigner cannot claim article 19.
1. What the freedom includes
"Expression" is wider than speech. It covers writing, printing, pictures, films and any other way of conveying an idea.
- Freedom of the press. The press is not named in article 19. It is included in article 19(1)(a). The press has the citizen's freedom, no more and no less.
- Freedom of circulation. The right to publish includes the right to circulate.
- Volume of circulation. The right also covers how much is circulated, such as the number of pages.
- Right to receive information. A right to speak needs a right to hear.
- Right to remain silent. Not speaking is also a form of expression.
- Speech over modern media, including electronic media and the internet.
2. The leading cases on the scope of the right
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124. Facts: Cross Roads was a weekly journal published in Bombay. The Madras Government banned its entry and circulation in Madras, under section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act 1949. Held: freedom of speech includes the freedom to spread ideas, and that is ensured by freedom of circulation. Section 9(1-A) allowed restrictions for public safety and public order. Those were then outside article 19(2), so the section was wholly void. Why it matters: circulation is part of the freedom. The case also led to the First Amendment of 1951.
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305. Facts: the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act 1956 fixed how many pages a newspaper could print at a given price. Its object was to help smaller newspapers. Held: the Act and Order were void under article 19(1)(a). The right covers the volume of circulation. Helping small newspapers is not a ground in article 19(2). Why it matters: a good purpose does not create a new ground.
Bennett Coleman & Co v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106. Facts: the newsprint policy limited the pages newspapers could print. The Government called it rationing of a scarce commodity. Held: shareholders and editors of a newspaper company keep their article 19 rights, so they could challenge the policy. A measure is judged by its effect on speech, not its label. Why it matters: an indirect restriction on the press is still a restriction.
3. The grounds of reasonable restriction: article 19(2)
The State may restrict speech only by a law, and only in the interests of these eight grounds:
- Sovereignty and integrity of India, added by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1963.
- Security of the State, which covers serious threats like rebellion or waging war.
- Friendly relations with foreign States, added in 1951.
- Public order, added in 1951. It is narrower than "law and order" and wider than "security of the State".
- Decency or morality, the basis of obscenity laws.
- Contempt of court, so that justice is not obstructed.
- Defamation, which harms a person's reputation.
- Incitement to an offence, added in 1951.
The three circles of order. Think of three circles, one inside the other. Law and order is the widest. Public order sits inside it. Security of the State is the smallest, at the centre. A small quarrel disturbs law and order. A riot disturbs public order. An armed rebellion threatens the security of the State.
4. The grounds are exhaustive
The list in article 19(2) is closed. No other ground may be added.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515. Facts: newspapers challenged customs duty on imported newsprint as a burden on the press. Held: freedom of the press is part of article 19(1)(a). There can be no restriction on speech other than those in article 19(2). There can be no interference "in the name of public interest". Why it matters: "public interest" is not one of the grounds.
Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 3 January 2023. Facts: a Constitution Bench considered statements made by Ministers about pending criminal cases. Held: the grounds in article 19(2) are exhaustive. No further restriction can be added by judges, even on Ministers. A code of conduct is for Parliament to make. Why it matters: it is the latest and most authoritative statement of the rule.
5. The test of reasonableness
A restriction must have a listed ground, and it must also be reasonable. The courts look at:
- the nature of the right and the purpose of the restriction;
- the size and urgency of the evil it targets;
- proportion, so the restriction goes no further than needed;
- whether a less drastic measure would do;
- the conditions at the time;
- fair procedure, such as reasons, a time limit and a review.
The word "reasonable" applies to the restriction, not only to the law's purpose. A good aim pursued by an excessive restriction fails.
A law is required. An executive instruction is not enough. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615, school circulars could not restrict article 19(1)(a), because they had no statutory basis.
6. Vagueness and over-breadth
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1. Facts: section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 punished online messages that were "grossly offensive" or caused "annoyance" or "inconvenience". Held: section 66A was struck down completely. Its words were vague, so an ordinary person could not know what was banned. It was over-broad, because it caught protected speech. It had a chilling effect, scaring people away from lawful speech. Section 69A, on blocking, was upheld because it needs a reasoned order on article 19(2) grounds. Why it matters: it separates discussion and advocacy, which are protected, from incitement, which may be punished.
7. Prior restraint
Prior restraint means stopping speech before it is published, for example by pre-censorship. It is not banned outright in India. Censorship of films has been upheld, because a film affects viewers differently from print. But courts examine prior restraint strictly, because it stops ideas before anyone can judge them.
Brij Bhushan v. The State of Delhi, 1950 AIR 129. Facts: a law let the Government make an editor submit all communal matter, and all matter about Pakistan, for scrutiny before publication. Held: it was void, because public order was not then a ground in article 19(2). Why it matters: even pre-censorship needs a ground in the list. The First Amendment then added public order.
8. The First Amendment, 1951
After Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan, Parliament passed the First Amendment in 1951. It added public order, friendly relations with foreign States and incitement to an offence. It also added the word "reasonable". That word lets the courts review every restriction.
Evaluation
The scheme is balanced. Speech is wide, covering the press, circulation and the internet. Restrictions are allowed only on listed grounds, only by law, and only if reasonable. The courts have kept the list closed and have struck down vague laws. One concern is that grounds like "public order" and "decency or morality" are broad. They can be stretched, so courts must test each restriction for proportion.
Conclusion. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and expression. It includes the press, circulation and the right to receive information. Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions on eight grounds only, and only by law. Indian Express Newspapers and Kaushal Kishor hold that the list is exhaustive, so "public interest" cannot justify a restriction. Shreya Singhal adds that a restriction must be clear and narrow. A restriction that is vague, excessive or outside the list will fail. The freedom is wide, but it is not absolute.
The rest of the answers
The rest of the answers come with the SPPU B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Semester 5 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 open to everyone.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.