https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168733 Freedom of speech and expression was held to include the propagation and circulation of newspapers, so a prohibition on a newspaper's entry and circulation directly burdened Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(2) was read narrowly: restrictions were permissible only where directed solely to the security of the State or its overthrow, not to public order generally. "Public safety" in the impugned law was treated as broader than "security of the State", and a provision covering both valid and invalid restraints could not survive by partial application where it was not severable. The section was therefore unconstitutional and void, and the prohibitory order was invalid. en-us Fri, 26 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:07:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168733 Freedom of speech and expression was held to include the propagation and circulation of newspapers, so a prohibition on a newspaper's entry and circulation directly burdened Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(2) was read narrowly: restrictions were permissible only where directed solely to the security of the State or its overthrow, not to public order generally. "Public safety" in the impugned law was treated as broader than "security of the State", and a provision covering both valid and invalid restraints could not survive by partial application where it was not severable. The section was therefore unconstitutional and void, and the prohibitory order was invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 May 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168733