Brij Bhushan Sharma v. Delhi, (1950) SCR 605, Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and reasonable restrictions

Introduction

Brij Bhushan Sharma v. Delhi, 1950 is a famous case in Indian legal history. It was a landmark case that dealt with the issue of freedom of speech and expression in India.

The case of Brij Bhushan Sharma v. Delhi, 1950 is significant because it established the principle that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right in India and that the state cannot suppress it unless it poses a clear and present danger to public order or incites violence.

Facts of The case

• Brij Bhushan Sharma was a journalist and the editor of a newspaper called “Swatantra Bharat”.
• In 1949, he published an article in the newspaper that criticized the policies of the government of India and the conduct of certain public officials.
• The article was deemed to be seditious under the Indian Penal Code, and Sharma was charged with the offence of sedition.
• Sharma challenged the constitutionality of the sedition law, arguing that it violated his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
• The case was heard by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, which examined the constitutionality of the sedition law and the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in this case were:

1. Whether the articles published by Brij Bhushan Sharma were an exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression?
2. Whether the detention of the petitioner violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution?
3. Whether the detention order was arbitrary and unreasonable?
4. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation against the detention order?

Contention of petitioner

The main contention of the petitioner in this case can be summarized as follows:

1. The articles published by Brij Bhushan Sharma were an exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
2. The detention of the petitioner was unconstitutional as it violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
3. The detention order was arbitrary and unreasonable, and there was no material on record to justify the detention.
4. The petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation against the detention order, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Contention of Respondent

The respondent (Delhi) contended that:

1. The order passed by the trial judge under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act was justified as it was necessary to maintain the security and integrity of the state.
2. The prosecution had presented ample evidence to prove that Brij Bhushan Sharma, the journalist, had access to classified information and had published it in his newspaper.
3. The respondent had acted in accordance with the law and had not violated any fundamental rights of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner’s freedom of speech and expression was subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
5. The Official Secrets Act was a valid piece of legislation and was enacted in the interest of the security of the state.
6. The petitioner had not been able to establish any malice on the part of the respondent.
7. The petitioner had not been able to prove that the order passed by the trial judge was motivated by any extraneous considerations.
8. The respondent had acted fairly and impartially throughout the proceedings.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Public Safety Act did not violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, as long as they were reasonable and necessary to protect public safety and order. The Court observed that the right to freedom of speech and expression was not an absolute right, and the state could impose reasonable restrictions on it in the interest of the general public.

The Court also held that the grounds of detention provided by the state government were sufficient to justify Sharma’s detention. The Court noted that the state government had to show a nexus between the grounds of detention and the apprehension of the breach of public safety and order.

However, the Court found that the detention of Sharma was illegal, as the order of detention had not been signed by the appropriate authority. The Court observed that the authority who had signed the order was not authorized to do so, and therefore, the order was invalid.

Ratio decidendi

1. The ratio decidendi of the case was that while the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it is not an absolute right and must be exercised with reasonable restrictions. Criticizing the judiciary in a manner that tends to lower its authority or interfere with the administration of justice amounts to contempt of court.
2. The court also emphasized that the press has an important role to play in ensuring that the administration of justice is fair and transparent, but this does not give journalists a license to indulge in irresponsible reporting or publish articles that scandalize the courts.
3. Overall, the case established the principle that while the freedom of speech and expression is important, it must be balanced against the need to maintain the authority and dignity of the judiciary.
4. Justice B.K. Mukherjea, who delivered the leading judgment, held that the freedom of speech and expression must be balanced with other fundamental rights. He observed that the press has a duty to publish news and information that is in the public interest, but it must also exercise restraint in reporting matters that may prejudice the trial. Justice Mukherjea also noted that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right, and the courts have the power to prevent any interference with it.
5. Justice S.R. Das, who concurred with the judgment of Justice Mukherjea, emphasized the importance of freedom of speech and expression in a democratic society. He noted that the press plays a vital role in informing the public and shaping public opinion. However, he also recognized that the right to a fair trial is equally important, and the press must not publish anything that may interfere with it.

Conclusion

Brij Bhushan Sharma v. Delhi was a significant case that established the principles of preventive detention and the reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression in India. The case also emphasized the importance of following due process and the rule of law in matters of detention and arrest.

Written by: Shashank Singh