Pre-censorship as prior restraint on publication tested against free speech and Article 19(2) protections.

Section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act imposed prior restraint on publication and therefore curtailed freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The majority treated the measure as special legislation aimed at public safety and public order, read those expressions as linked to the security of the State, and held that the preventive control could fall within the Article 19(2) exception; the impugned pre-censorship order was nevertheless quashed as unsustainable. Fazl Ali J. dissented, considering the restriction protected by Article 19(2) and the petition liable to dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, authorising pre-censorship of publication on specified subjects, infringed the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and whether it was saved by Article 19(2).

Analysis: The provision imposed a prior restraint on publication and therefore curtailed the liberty of the press, which falls within freedom of speech and expression. The controlling question was whether the restriction related to a matter covered by the saving clause in Article 19(2). The majority treated the Act as special legislation directed to public safety and public order, read those expressions as connected with the security of the State, and held that preventive control over publications of the kind contemplated by the section fell within the constitutional exception. The impugned order made under that provision was therefore unsustainable, and the petitioners were entitled to relief.

Conclusion: The pre-censorship order was unconstitutional and was quashed.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: Fazl Ali J. dissented. He held that the Act was a valid measure for public safety and maintenance of public order, that those expressions were closely allied to the security of the State, and that the impugned restriction was protected by Article 19(2). On that view, the petition should have been dismissed.

---