Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 80 [Article 19]

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which includes the freedom to communicate, publish and disseminate information through different forms of media, including films and digital platforms. However, this freedom is not absolute. Under Article 19(2), the State may impose reasonable restrictions on specified grounds, including public order. Such a restriction must have a real, proximate and reasonable connection with the threatened public disorder; a remote, speculative or imaginary possibility of unrest is generally insufficient. 

A person whose Fundamental Rights are affected by executive action may approach the High Court under Article 226 and, for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, may also directly approach the Supreme Court under Article 32. An individual directly affected by a government order has sufficient standing to challenge it. Further, the existence of an alternative technological method or workaround for accessing restricted content does not by itself remove or cure an otherwise unconstitutional restriction imposed by the State.

Passage

Arjun, a documentary filmmaker from Pune, released a short film online criticising the functioning of a State government department responsible for the public distribution of foodgrains. The film used authenticated government data and interviews with affected villagers.

Within forty-eight hours, the State government issued an executive order directing all internet service providers operating in the State to block access to the film. The stated reason was that the film was “prejudicial to public order and likely to incite unrest among the rural population.”

Arjun filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the executive order. The State government argued that the blocking order was a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) and that the High Court should defer to executive judgment on matters of public order.

The State further contended that Arjun, being a private individual, had no standing to challenge a policy decision of the executive.

The High Court declined to interfere, holding that since the film was still accessible through a VPN, Arjun’s fundamental right had not actually been infringed.

Q1.

The State government’s blocking order was issued against access to a factual documentary. The most appropriate constitutional challenge Arjun can raise is that the order violates:

(A) Article 21 alone, since the right to livelihood of a filmmaker is affected
(B) Article 14 alone, since the order targets only one film and is arbitrary
(C) Article 19(1)(a), since freedom of speech includes the right to disseminate information through films and online media
(D) Article 32, since only the Supreme Court can issue directions to internet service providers

Q2.

The State government’s argument that Arjun lacks standing because he is a private individual is:

(A) Incorrect, because any person whose Fundamental Right is violated has the standing to file a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court
(B) Correct, because only institutions can challenge executive policy decisions under writ jurisdiction
(C) Correct, because challenges to executive blocking orders require an aggrieved industry body, not an individual
(D) Incorrect, but only if Arjun is also a citizen of the concerned State

Q3.

The High Court’s finding that Arjun’s fundamental right was not infringed because the film was accessible via VPN is:

(A) Correct, because actual inaccessibility is the threshold for any fundamental rights violation
(B) Incorrect, because the State cannot justify the violation of a fundamental right on the ground that an alternative illegal or workaround route is available to the aggrieved person
(C) Correct, because VPN access implies the restriction was not absolute and thus not unreasonable
(D) Incorrect, but only if the VPN route itself was being blocked at the time of the petition

Q4.

The State’s reliance on “public order” as justification under Article 19(2) to block a factual film based on government data would most likely fail because:

(A) Public order is not a recognised ground of restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution
(B) Article 19(2) permits restrictions only on printed publications and not on digital media or films
(C) A documentary film is categorically exempt from all restrictions under Article 19(2)
(D) A mere possibility or apprehension of unrest, without a demonstrable proximate connection between the film and public disorder, does not satisfy the standard of reasonable restriction

Q5.

Arjun wishes to approach the Supreme Court directly without exhausting remedies before the High Court. The correct constitutional provision that enables him to do so specifically for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is:

(A) Article 32 of the Constitution, which confers the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
(B) Article 136, which grants special leave to appeal against any High Court decision
(C) Article 142, which empowers the Supreme Court to do complete justice
(D) Article 226, which empowers the Supreme Court in exceptional public interest matters

This practice set is from: CLAT Legal Reasoning Course & Question Bank → Constitutional Law → Set 1