With reference to constitutional restrictions on free speech and assembly in India, consider the following statements:
- Article 19(2) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interest of public order.
- The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) held that mere advocacy of an unpopular or provocative cause is protected speech unless it crosses into incitement to imminent violence.
- Umar Khalid faces UAPA charges in connection with the Northeast Delhi riots.
- Under Article 19(2), a State can restrict content solely on the ground that it labels a cause as "anti-national," without independently establishing a threat of imminent disorder.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Tests the ability to distinguish the actual legal threshold for restricting speech from a political justification that invokes but does not satisfy that threshold.
Subscribe / Login in App →