Back to Blog
New york times 6 political party quiz5/31/2023 ![]() (5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe ![]() ![]() (4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause (3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause (2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence Sullivan, in which the US Supreme Court found that defamation law, as applied by the state against The New York Times, was inconsistent with the Constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech and expression, the SC noted a shift in US law from a “purely vertical approach” to a “horizontal approach.” Referring to the landmark New York Times vs. The Court also referred to several foreign jurisdictions, contrasting the American approach with the European Courts. One of the key arguments by the government was that privacy is a right enforceable against other citizens and, therefore, cannot be elevated to the status of a fundamental right against the state. The Court relied on the 2017 verdict in Puttaswamy where a nine-judge bench unanimously upheld privacy as a fundamental right. The transformation was from ‘State’ to ‘Authorities’ to ‘instrumentalities of State’ to ‘agency of the Government’ to ‘impregnation with Governmental character’ to ‘enjoyment of monopoly status conferred by State’ to “deep and pervasive control” to the “nature of the duties/functions performed,” the majority view by Justice V Ramasubramanian stated. “The original thinking of this court that these rights can be enforced only against the State, changed over a period of time. ALSO READ | UPSC Essentials | Key terms of the past week with MCQs
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |