https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189758 'Public order' in Article 19(2) was confined to public peace, safety and tranquillity, and did not extend to every breach of law or remote disturbance. A restriction on speech had to show a real and proximate nexus with public order; section 3 of the U.P. Special Powers Act, 1932 was held to sweep too widely because it penalised broad forms of instigation without that necessary connection. The provision was therefore not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(a). The offending part was also found inseverable, so the entire section failed and could not be sustained as a constitutional restraint on speech. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:56:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189758 'Public order' in Article 19(2) was confined to public peace, safety and tranquillity, and did not extend to every breach of law or remote disturbance. A restriction on speech had to show a real and proximate nexus with public order; section 3 of the U.P. Special Powers Act, 1932 was held to sweep too widely because it penalised broad forms of instigation without that necessary connection. The provision was therefore not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(a). The offending part was also found inseverable, so the entire section failed and could not be sustained as a constitutional restraint on speech. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Jan 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189758