Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T11:42:16.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Constitutional Liberties and Cyberspace: Analysing the Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India Case and its Impact on Fundamental Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2024

Abstract

The right to free speech and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of part III of the Indian constitution. The fundamental rights act as the constitutional restraints over the state's authority to intervene within the protective gamut of civil liberties of the people. However, the Indian judiciary remains the principal enforcer of the constitutional liberties guaranteed as fundamental rights whenever breached by the state. As the interpreters of the constitution and guardians of civil liberties, the Indian constitutional courts have consistently acted to protect people from state-authorised interventions in their respective domains of fundamental rights. To this concept, this research article by Rebant Juyal attempts to study the landmark judgment of the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, where the court upheld the fundamental right of people to express their speech and expression on the internet.

Type
International Perpectives
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Endnotes

1 Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308, para 20

2 Ibid para 15

3 Id., para 27

4 Id., para 152(b)

5 (2017) 10 SCC 1

6 Ibid para 310

7 (2019) SCC OnLineSC 1 459

8 Ibid para 225

9 [1983] 1 WLR 151, 155 (Diplock J)

10 Ibid

11 Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308 [Para 49]; Zedner, Lucia, ‘Securing Liberty in the Face of Terror: Reflections from Criminal Justice’, (2005) 32 Journal of Law and Society 510CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Chintaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118. The court ruled: “The phrase, “reasonable restriction” connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public.”

13 Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308 [Para 51]

14 Ibid para 146

15 Ibid para 140(i)

16 Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308 [Para 86]

17 Ibid para 86

18 Ibid para 36

19 Ibid para 99