Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Case Name: Brij Bhushan Sharma vs State of Delhi, 1950
• Equivalent Citation: (1950) SCR 605
• Date of Judgment: 5th December 1950
• Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1949
• Case Type: Criminal Appeal before Supreme Court
• Petitioner: Brij Bhushan and Another
• Respondent: The State of Delhi

Facts of Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi

• The case of Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi, 1950, is significant as it set a crucial legal precedent in India regarding freedom of speech and expression.
• In 1949, Brij Bhushan Sharma, a journalist and editor of "Swatantra Bharat," published an article criticizing Indian government policies and specific public officials.
• Authorities deemed the article seditious under the Indian Penal Code, charging Sharma with sedition.
• Sharma contested the constitutionality of the sedition law, arguing that it infringed upon his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression protected by the Indian Constitution.
• A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India examined the constitutionality of the sedition law and the boundaries of freedom of speech and expression.

Issues Addressed in Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi Case

• Were the articles published by Brij Bhushan Sharma considered as an exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression?
• Did the detention of the petitioner violate his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution?
• Was the detention order deemed arbitrary and unreasonable?
• Was the petitioner provided a reasonable opportunity to make a representation against the detention order?

Contentions of the Petitioner

• The petitioner argued in the case of Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi that his articles, authored by Brij Bhushan Sharma, were an exercise of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
• He claimed that his detention was unconstitutional as it violated his rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
• The petitioner contended that the order for his detention was arbitrary and unreasonable, lacking substantial evidence or justification.
• Additionally, he stated that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case against the detention order, thereby infringing upon the principles of natural justice.

Contentions of the Respondent (Delhi)

• The respondent presented arguments in the case of Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi, justifying the trial judge's order under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. They believed this action was essential to safeguard the security and integrity of the state.
• The prosecution contended that there existed significant evidence supporting the claim that Brij Bhushan Sharma, a journalist, had access to confidential information and had subsequently published it in his newspaper.
• The respondent maintained their actions were in compliance with the law and did not infringe upon any of the petitioner's fundamental rights.
• Emphasizing that the petitioner's right to freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable limitations under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the respondent argued their case.
• They argued that the Official Secrets Act stands as a legitimate piece of legislation enacted in the interest of the state's security.
• In the case of Brij Bhushan versus State of Delhi, the respondent asserted that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any ill intent on their part.
• The respondent contended that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the trial judge's order was influenced by external factors.
• Lastly, the respondent claimed that they maintained fairness and impartiality throughout the legal proceedings.

Laws Involved

Constitution of India, Article 19, clauses (1)(a) and (2)

• Enshrines the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Legislation may impose prior restraint on newspapers to uphold public safety and prevent public disorder.
• Content that could disrupt public safety or incite public disorder is scrutinized.
• Interpretation of Article 19, clause (2) is crucial in determining the boundaries of free speech.
• Validity of Section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949, is examined in this context.

Judgement

Judgement in Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi

• Chief Justice Kania, along with Justices Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Mukherjea, and Das, with Justice Fazl Ali in dissent, made a crucial decision regarding Section 7(1)(c) and its implications on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
• The court ruled that Section 7(1)(c) allowed restrictions to be placed on free speech to safeguard public safety and maintain public order, but it did not fall under the exceptions outlined in Article 19(2) related to undermining state security.
• This decision aligned with the precedent established in Romesh Thappar v. The State ([1950] S.C.R. 594).

Justice Fazl Ali's Dissenting Opinion

• Justice Fazl Ali dissented, arguing that "public safety" should primarily concern the security of the State, while "public order" could encompass disturbances not threatening state security.
• He emphasized that the Act in question focused on public safety, which should be understood as "public tranquillity." Any disruptions to public tranquillity could ultimately jeopardize state security.
• Justice Fazl Ali contended that Section 7(1)(c) should be considered permissible under Article 19(2) due to its relevance to maintaining public safety in the case of Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi.

Held by the Full Court in Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi

• The Supreme Court, in the case of Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi, determined that imposing pre-censorship on a journal constituted a restriction on press freedom, a vital aspect of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
• The restriction on press freedom was deemed necessary to safeguard public interest, drawing support from Blackstone's Commentaries.

Conclusion

• Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi, a landmark Indian legal case from 1950, affirmed the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in India and established significant legal precedents. Brij Bhushan Sharma, a journalist and editor of the "Swatantra Bharat" newspaper, faced charges of sedition for publishing an article critical of the government. The Supreme Court of India, in a five-judge bench, examined the constitutionality of the sedition law and the extent of freedom of speech and expression.
• The court held in Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi that restrictions on this fundamental right should only be imposed if there is a clear and present danger to public order or incitement of violence. Consequently, Brij Bhushan Sharma's detention was deemed unconstitutional, underscoring the significance of safeguarding free speech in India's democratic framework. This case remains a cornerstone in protecting freedom of expression in India.