The article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states that, all citizens will have the right to the right to speak freely of speech and expression. The way of thinking behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a grave purpose is made to get to all its resident, freedom of thought and expression. The exercise of this right is, be that as it may, subject to sensible limitations for specific purposes being forced under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

The substance of free speech is the capacity to think and talk unreservedly and to acquire data from others through distributions and public talk unafraid of requital, limitation, or restraint by the public authority. It is through free speech, individuals could meet up to accomplish political impact, to fortify their ethical quality, and to help other people to become good and illuminated citizens.

The right to speak freely is viewed as the main state of freedom. It involves a liked and significant situation in the chain of importance of the freedom, it is genuinely said about the right to speak freely that it is the mother of any remaining freedoms.

The right to speak freely of Speech and expression implies the option to state one's own feelings and viewpoints unreservedly by expressions of mouth, composing, printing, pictures or some other mode. In current time it is broadly acknowledged that the right to the right to speak freely of speech is the substance of free society and it should be shielded at unsurpassed. The primary rule of a free society is an unhampered progression of words in an open discussion. Freedom to state viewpoints and thoughts without deterrent, and particularly unafraid of discipline assumes critical part in the advancement of that specific culture and eventually for that state. It is quite possibly the main essential freedoms ensured against state concealment or guideline.

After that We’ll discuss Case Summery of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India

Philosophy of Freedom:
What is freedom?
Freedom is the desire of people to be in control of their own lives and destinies and to have the opportunity to express themselves freely through their choices and activities. Freedom is absence of compels [individual could be viewed as free on the off chance that he/she isn't dependent upon outside controls and can settle on autonomous choices and act in a self-ruling way.] and ability to express themselves and develop their own potentials. Society which enables all its members to develop their potential with the minimum number of constrains.

A supportive way to deal with characterizing opportunity was advanced by Sir Isaiah Berlin (1859) in his work Two Concept of Liberty what separates freedom into negative and positive freedom. Negative opportunity as per Berlin, is the individual independence from certain deterrents (subjugation, servitude, and jail, lawful, good or social restriction) to free development. Opportunity here infers the shortfall of outer control (Sheldon Ward, 2001; Collin Bird, 2006; Heywood, 1992).

This origination of opportunity is dominatingly found in the liberal journalists (like Hobbes, Bentham and John Stuart Mill) who take opportunity to be a component of how much specialists are meddled or hindered. Berlin depicted that opportunity of a man manacled to a divider in a protected jail cell is in this sense seriously abridged. The freedom of development, activity, thought, drive, energy, etc, without somebody foundation, culture or law saying you can't do that. Such unlimited opportunity portrays Hobbes vision of condition of nature which prompts rivalry, struggle, and implosion.

Liberalism[1] is an ideology which is identified with tolerance s a value. Liberals have often defended the right of a person to hold and express his/her opinions and beliefs even when they disagree with them. Liberalism is an individual centric ideology. Individual liberty is given value over quality.

Negative and Positive Liberty[2]:
Negative Freedom comprises of independence from something while positive opportunity comprises of the capacity to accomplish something. Negative opportunity hence comprises of laws to battle separation though certain opportunity empowers those on restricted wages to lead a more satisfied and significant presence. In last work on the idea of opportunity, Isaiah berlin [1969] contended that positive freedom empowers the person to take control on their life.

Positive freedom can along these lines be perceived to mean the opportunity to play out an activity of some portrayal. As such certain freedom works with the production of government assistance of a state. Negative freedom anyway mirrors the shortfall of obstructions and obliges. We subsequently have negative freedom to the degree that activities are accessible to us.

The distinction between positive and negative freedom is a significant one in terms of the proper role of the state. Negative freedom demands limited role for the state and positive freedom demands large role for the state.

Sen gives two reasons why freedom ought to be the essential component of improvement: first, the lone satisfactory assessment of human advancement is basically and at last upgrade of freedom; second, the accomplishment of advancement is subject to the free organization of individuals. Numerous individuals will concur with the main attestation, as long as the meaning of freedom is adequately wide to incorporate freedom from material or otherworldly need, which it accomplishes for Sen.

The subsequent declaration is more disputable inside standard financial aspects and famous talk: the explanation normally given by market analysts to scale back open consumptions, including training, lodging, medical services and social government assistance, is that helpless economies can't bear the cost of such uses and that turn of events (as far as monetary growth) should happen sole then, at that point would societies be able to bear to take care of the social government assistance of their kin (for an exemplary form of this stage proposition, see Rostow, 1960).

Sen breaks with this conventionality, giving proof that big time salaries don't really prompt prosperity (for example, as far as future), and contending that government assistance consumptions can be a prod to instead of a channel on monetary growth, particularly since they are work serious and since work is so modest in helpless nations. Hence, he contends against the Lee Thesis, named for President Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, which expresses that denying political and social liberties is adequate in the event that it advances monetary turn of events and the overall abundance of the populace (Sen, 1999:15).

He properly demands that we should move toward political freedoms and social equality not through the method for ultimately accomplishing them (GDP growth) however as an immediate decent by their own doing. Freedom is additionally acceptable on the grounds that it makes growth.[3]

There are two unmistakable reasons for the significant significance of individual freedom in the idea of improvement, related separately to assessment and viability. To start with, in the regulating approach utilized here, meaningful individual freedoms are taken to be basic.

The achievement of a general public is to be assessed, in this view, basically by the considerable freedoms that the individuals from that society appreciate. This evaluative position contrasts from the educational focal point of more conventional regularizing approaches, which center around different factors, like utility, or procedural freedom, or genuine pay.[4]

Having more prominent freedom to do the things one has motivation to esteem is (1) huge in itself for the individual's general freedom, and (2) significant in encouraging the individual's chance to have important results. Both are pertinent to the assessment of freedom of the individuals from the general public and subsequently significant to the appraisal of the general public's turn of events.

The second justification for taking considerable freedom to be so urgent is that freedom isn't just the premise of the assessment of achievement and disappointment, yet it is additionally an essential determinant of individual initia­tive and social viability. More noteworthy freedom improves the capacity of individuals to help themselves and furthermore to impact the world, and these issue are fundamental to the interaction of advancement. The worry here identifies with what we may call (at the danger of some distortion) the office angle of the person.[5]

Harm Principle:
The Harm Principle is a focal precept of the political way of thinking known as progressivism and was first proposed by English scholar John Stuart factory. the sole end for which humanity are justified, independently or all things considered, in meddling with the freedom of activity of any of their number, is self-security. That the solitary reason for which force can be legitimately practiced over any individual from an edified local area, without wanting to, will be to forestall harm to other people.

Freedom is at the center of human culture.[6]
The methodology is normally connected to negative rights which are requests somebody doesn't do something to you. On the opposite side positive rights request things are accomplished for you, similar to arrangement of medical care. Thus, the principle is frequently utilized in political discussions to talk about the restrictions of state power.

Article 19 (1) (a):
Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.

1. All citizens shall have the right:
   
   1. to freedom of speech and expression;
   2. to assemble peaceably and without arms
   3. to form associations or unions;
   4. to move freely throughout the territory of India;
   5. to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
   6. omitted
   7. to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.[7]

Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India expresses that all residents will reserve the privilege to freedom of speech and expression. The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a serious purpose is made to get to every one of its recsidents, freedom of thought and expression. The activity of this right is, nonetheless, subject to sensible limitations for specific intentions being forced under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

The principle components of right to freedom of speech and expression are as under:

1. This right is accessible just to a resident of India and not to far off nationals.
2. The freedom of speech under Article 19(1) (a) incorporates the right to state ones’ perspectives and viewpoints at any issue through any medium, for example by expressions of mouth, composing, printing, picture, film, film and so on.
3. This right is, nonetheless, not outright and it permits Government to outline laws to force sensible limitations in light of a legitimate concern for power and trustworthiness of India, security of the state, amicable relations with unfamiliar states, public request, conventionality and ethical quality and disdain of court, slander and instigation to an offense.
4. This limitation on the freedom of speech of any resident might be forced as much by an activity of the State as by its inaction. Hence, disappointment with respect to the State to ensure to every one of its residents the essential right to freedom of speech and expression would likewise comprise an infringement of Article 19(1)(a).

Importance of Freedom of speech and expression:
An essential component of a practical democracy is to permit all citizens to take part in the political and social cycles of the country. There is plentiful freedom of speech, thought and expression in all structures (verbal, composed, broadcast, and so on) in a sound democracy.

Freedom of speech is ensured by the Indian Constitution as well as by global rules like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (announced on tenth December 1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and so on:

• This is significant on the grounds that democracy functions admirably just if individuals reserve the privilege to state their viewpoints about the government and reprimand it if necessary.
• The voice of individuals should be heard and their complaints are fulfilled.
• Not simply in the political circle, even in different circles like social, social and financial, individuals should have their voices heard in a genuine democracy.
• Without the above freedoms, democracy is compromised. The government will turn out to be all around very amazing and begin serving the interests of a couple instead of the overall population.
• Substantial clampdown on the right to free speech and free press will make a dread factor under which individuals would suffer oppression quietly. In such a situation, individuals would feel smothered and would prefer to endure than state their viewpoints.
• Freedom of the press is likewise a significant factor in the freedom of speech and expression.
• The second Chief Justice of India, M Patanjali Sastri has noticed, Freedom of Speech and of the Press establish at the framework of every equitable association, for without free political conversation no state funded schooling, so fundamental for the legitimate working of the interaction of Government, is conceivable.
• In the Indian context, the meaning of this freedom can be perceived from the way that the actual Preamble guarantees to all citizens the freedom of thought, expression, conviction, confidence and love.
• Liberal popular governments, particularly in the West, have an extremely wide understanding of the freedom of speech and expression. There is a lot of spaces for individuals to communicate disagree unreservedly.
• Nonetheless, most nations (counting liberal popular governments) have a type of restriction set up, the vast majority of which are identified with slander, hate speech, etc.
• The thought behind oversight is by and large to forestall the rule of law issues in the country.

Importance of Freedom:
Freedom is considered as valuable because it allows us to make choices and to exercise our judgment.

It permits the exercise of the individual’s power of reason and judgment. Freedom is important because it leads to enhanced expression of creativity and original thought, increased productivity, and an overall high quality of life. Individuals who live in freedom will in general disregard its delicacy and underestimate it. On the other hand, individuals who have not been raised inside a long standing practice of freedom experience difficulty understanding and carrying out it in their general public.

There is no such things as absolute freedom, especially within large political jurisdiction such as cities and countries. All freedom requires compromise between the rights of the individual and the goals and obligations of the state. According to ideals of freedom, there are laws regulation and judicial pronouncement and the detail of how it is to be practiced.

Restriction on Freedom of Speech:
Freedom of speech is not absolute. Article 19(2) forces limitations on the right to freedom of discourse and articulation.

The reasons for such restrictions are in the interests of:

• Security
• Sovereignty and integrity of the country
• Friendly relations with foreign countries
• Public order
• Decency or morality
• Hate speech
• Defamation
• Contempt of court

The Constitution provides people with the freedom of expression without fear of reprisal, but it must be used with caution, and responsibly.

Case Summary and Outcome
Shreya Singhal versus Union of India is a landmark case of the Indian Judiciary, where the court pondered upon the issue of the constitutional legitimacy of specific sections of the IT Act and saw whether these sections are violative of the basic rights revered under the Indian Constitution. Settled on 24th March 2015, where the Supreme Court of India negated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 completely.

Issues brought up in the case of Shreya Singhal versus Union of India:

• Regardless of whether sections 66-A, 69-A, and 79 of the IT Act are constitutionally legitimate?
• Regardless of whether Section 66A of the IT Act is violative of the major right of the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation?

Realities
Police captured two ladies for posting purportedly hostile and questionable remarks on Facebook about the appropriateness of closing down the city of Mumbai after the demise of a political pioneer. The police made the captures under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which rebuffs any individual who sends through a PC asset or specialized gadget any data that is horribly hostile, or with the information on its misrepresentation, the data is sent to cause irritation, burden, risk, affront, injury, disdain, or malevolence.

Albeit the police later delivered the ladies and excused their indictment, the occurrence conjured significant media consideration and analysis. The ladies then, at that point documented a request, testing the constitutional legitimacy of Section 66A on the ground that it disregards the right to opportunity of articulation.

The Supreme Court of India at first gave a between time measure in Singhal v. Association of India, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73, denying any capture compliant with Section 66A except if such capture is supported by senior cops. In the case close by, the Court tended to the constitutionality of the arrangement.

Contentions of the Petitioner:
The solicitors battle that the actual premise of Section 66A - that it has brought about new types of wrongdoings - is mistaken, and that Sections 66B to 67C and different Sections of the Indian Penal Code are adequate to manage this load of violations.

As indicated by them, most importantly Section 66A encroaches the essential right to free discourse and articulation and isn't saved by any of the eight subjects shrouded in Article 19(2) and causing of irritation, bother, risk, block, affront, injury, criminal terrorizing, hostility, scorn or malevolence are largely outside the domain of Article 19(2).

There come times throughout the entire existence of any constitutional court, when statute turns out to be so totally untethered from the constitutional content and rules that what is most desperately required is basically a reaffirmation of the essential significance of text and design.

The right to speak freely is dependent upon sensible limitations which might be thought vital in light of a legitimate concern for the overall population.[8]

Social interest of individuals abrogates singular opportunity. We need to surrender, that these restrictions on freedom might be supported by their outright need and clear reason.[9]

In indicating that under the Constitution, discourse can be limited distinctly under one of the eight recorded grounds under Article 19(2), Justice Nariman states:

Under our constitutional plan, as expressed prior, it isn't available to the State to diminish the right to speak freely of discourse to advance the overall population interest.[10]

Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India is a landmark case of the Indian Judiciary, where the court deliberated upon the issue of the constitutional validity of certain sections of the IT Act and observed whether these sections are violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under the Indian Constitution. Decided on 24th March 2015, where the Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in its entirety.

In specifying that under the Constitution, speech can be restricted only under one of the eight listed grounds under Article 19(2), Justice Nariman states:

In doing as such, he has played out the limitlessly significant help of re-arranging free discourse statute back towards its basic objectives and purposes: deciphering the Constitution of a liberal-vote based country.

This may seem like a harmless however significant proclamation, on the grounds that, throughout the long term, judges have more than once overlooked the way that Article 19(2) thoroughly records eight grounds of limitation, and that public interest isn't one of them. Judges have maintained limitations upon the indistinct grounds by going past its brief, and falling the particular terms of 19(2) into a dream of public or social interest, and afterward maintained the broad limitations that the public authority has looked to force.

Further, in making an offense, Section 66A experiences the bad habit of dubiousness on the grounds that dissimilar to the offense made by Section 66 of a similar Act, none of the aforementioned terms are even endeavored to be characterized and can't be characterized, the outcome being that honest people are roped in just as the individuals who are not. Such people are not told plainly on which side of the line they fall; and it is available to the specialists to be just about as self-assertive and unconventional as they like in booking such people under the said section.

Truth be told, an enormous number of blameless people have been reserved and numerous cases have been given as a note to the Court. The implementation of the said Section would truly be a tricky type of restriction which debilitates a fundamental belief contained in Article 19(1)(a). Likewise, the said Section chillingly affects the right to speak freely and articulation. Likewise, the right of watchers is encroached as such chilling impact would not give them the advantage of numerous shades of dim as far as different perspectives that could be seen over the web.

The applicants likewise battle that their privileges under Articles 14 and 21 are penetrated because there is no clear differentia between the individuals who utilize the web and the individuals who by words expressed or composed utilize different mechanisms of correspondence. To rebuff someone since he utilizes a specific mechanism of correspondence is itself a prejudicial item and would fall foul of Article 14 regardless.

Contentions of the Respondent:
In answer, Mr. Tushar Mehta, took in Additional Solicitor General shielded the constitutionality of Section 66A. He contended that the governing body is in the best situation to comprehend and like the requirements of individuals. The Court will, in this way, meddle with the authoritative interaction just when a rule is unmistakably violative of the rights gave on the resident under Part-III of the Constitution.

There is an assumption for the constitutionality of an order. Further, the Court would so understand a rule to make it serviceable and in doing as such can add something extra to it or read down the arrangements that are criticized. The Constitution doesn't force inconceivable norms of deciding legitimacy. Remote chance of maltreatment of an arrangement can't be a ground to pronounce an arrangement invalid. Free language may have been utilized in Section 66A to manage novel techniques for upsetting others' privileges by utilizing the web as an instrument to do as such. Further, ambiguity isn't a ground to pronounce a rule unconstitutional if the rule is generally administratively skilled and non-discretionary. He refered to an enormous number of decisions before us both from this Court and from abroad to support his entries.

Utilization of American First Amendment law:
At the point when judges wishing to maintain broad limitations upon the ability to speak freely are confronted with opposite American cases, rather than drawing in with the thinking and exhibiting why it is invalid or unimportant, they constant summon the Principal Amendment is an outright! where as Article 19 (1) (a) is dependent upon sensible limitations, and save themselves the difficulty of thinking about opposite thinking.

Albeit, American law has verifiably been definitely more discourse defensive than its Indian partner, what is unquestionable is that over 100 years, American adjudicators have created a profound, smart and complex arrangement of standards for understanding the motivations behind the ability to speak freely in a constitutional majority rules system.

This was plainly perceived by the composers. In the Constituent Assembly Debates, Ambedkar himself noticed:

It isn't right to say that major rights in America are total. The contrast between the situation under the American Constitution and the Draft Constitution is one of structure and not of substance. That the central rights in America are not supreme rights is past question. On the side of each exemption for the crucial rights set out in the Draft Constitution one can allude to no less than one judgment of the United States Supreme Court.

Equity Nariman clinically wrecks the previously mentioned canard by refering to, the exemplary American judgment[11] and effectively calls attention to that the American Supreme Court has never given strict impact to the 'make no law' expression. He then, at that point accurately takes note of that the essential contrast between the American and Indian positions is that while in the United States, a convincing public premium should be shown to control discourse, in India, a limitation should be covered by the eight topics determined in Article 19(2). All in all, there could be events when the Indian Constitution secures more discourse than the American! Regardless, subject to this rider, Justice Nariman notes:

Seen according to the above point of view, American decisions have incredible influential worth on the substance of the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation and the tests set down for its encroachment.

Decision Overview
Judges Chelameswar and Nariman conveyed the assessment of the Supreme Court of India.

The Court previously examined three central ideas in understanding the opportunity of articulation: conversation, support, and induction. As per the Court, simple conversation or even support of a specific reason howsoever disagreeable is at the core of the right. What's more, the law may reduce the opportunity just when a conversation or backing adds up to instigation.

As applied to the case close by, the Court found that Section 66A is equipped for restricting all types of web correspondences as it sees no difference amongst simple conversation or support of a specific perspective, which might be irritating or badly designed or horribly hostile to a few and impelling by which such words lead to an up and coming causal association with public issue, security of State and so on

The Court additionally held that the law neglects to set up a reasonable general connection to the security of public request. As indicated by the Court, the commission of an offense under Section 66A is finished by communicating something specific to cause irritation or affront. Subsequently, the law doesn't make qualification between mass spread and scattering to just a single individual without requiring the message to have an unmistakable inclination of upsetting public request.

Regarding whether Section 66A was a substantial endeavor to shield people from abusive articulations through online interchanges, the Court noticed that the principle element of criticism is injury to notoriety. It held that the law doesn't concern this target since it likewise censures hostile explanations that may bother or be badly designed to a person without influencing his standing.

The Court additionally held that the public authority neglected to show that the law expects to forestall correspondences that induce the commission of an offense because the simple causing of irritation, burden, peril and so on, or being horribly hostile or having a threatening person are not offenses under the Penal Code by any means.

Concerning applicants' test of unclearness, the Court followed the U.S. legal point of reference, which holds that where no sensible principles are set down to characterize blame in a Section which makes an offense, and where no reasonable direction is given to either reputable residents or to specialists and courts, a Section which makes an offense and which is unclear should be struck down as being subjective and unreasonable. The Court found that Section 66A leaves numerous terms open-finished and indistinct, hence making the resolution void for ambiguity.

The Court likewise tended to whether Section 66A is fit for forcing chilling impact on the right to opportunity of expresssion. It held that on the grounds that the arrangement neglects to characterize terms, like burden or irritation, an extremely enormous measure of secured and guiltless discourse could be diminished.

The Court additionally noticed the clear distinction between data sent through web and different types of discourse, which allows the public authority to make separate offenses identified with online correspondences. In like manner, the Court dismissed applicants' contention that Section 66A was infringing upon Article 14 of the Constitution against segregation.

The Court declined to address the Petitioners' test of procedural absurdity since the law was at that point pronounced unconstitutional on meaningful grounds. It likewise discovered Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act to be unconstitutional as applied to Section 66A.

In light of the doing without reasons, the Court discredited Section 66A of ITA completely as it disregarded the right to opportunity of articulation ensured under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:
Expands Expression
This choice surely grows the opportunity of articulation by barely deciphering the sensible grounds of confining the right, like keeping everything under control or ensuring one's standing.

Notwithstanding, in February 2019, just about four years after the fact, the Supreme Court was given new prosecution dependent on discoveries that the Singhal v. Association of India ruling was not being as expected executed. The Internet Freedom Foundation distributed a study in November 2018 on the proceeded with utilization of the Section which found around 65 to 70 cases in total in various legitimate data sets and that new cases were being enlisted in police headquarters, examined and from there on, considered by lower Courts. The examination put the proceeded with utilization of 66A on the radar and the People's Union for Civil Liberties, one of the candidates in the first case, by and by moved toward the Supreme Court in January, 2019, in an application for headings.

The application looked for that a duplicate of the Shreya Singhal judgment be given through suitable fliers to all Chief Secretaries of States, and onwards to Directors Generals of Police. A comparable bearing was looked to all High Courts, for additional dispersal to the District Courts under their ward. At last, the application mentioned that the High Courts pass essential orders in all forthcoming cases of 66A to guarantee removal. The Supreme Court permitted the solicitation as for dispersal of the judgment by order dated 15.02.2019. In a blog post, advocates associated with the appeal, Sanjana Srikumar and Joanne D'Cunha, examine the prosecution and the test of post-decisional oversight and execution.

Bibliography:

1. Books:
   • Development As Freedom, by Amartya Sen
   • V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India 128, (Eastern book company, Lucknow, 13th edition, 2017)
2. Research Articles:
   
   • Gautam Bhatia, “The Striking Down of Section 66A: How Indian Free Speech Jurisprudence Found its Soul Again”, (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 27 March 2015),  https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/the-striking-down-of-section-66a-how-indian-free-speech-jurisprudence-found-its-soul-again/
   • Macleod, Christopher, John Stuart Mill, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/mill/ accessed 14 July 2021
   • Carter, Ian, Positive and Negative Liberty, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ accessed 14 July 2021
   • Denis O’Hearn, Amartya Sen’s Development of freedom: Ten years’ letter, (Public awareness, Issue 8, Spring 2009)
   • Rickless, Samuel, Locke On Freedom, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/locke-freedom/ accessed 10 July 2021
   • Gaus, Gerald, Shane D. Courtland, and David Schmidtz, Liberalism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/liberalism/ accessed 14 July 2021

End-Notes:

1. Macleod, Christopher, John Stuart Mill, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/mill/ accessed 14 July 2021
2. Carter, Ian, Positive and Negative Liberty, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ accessed 14 July 2021
3. Denis O’Hearn, Amartya Sen’s Development of freedom: Ten years’ letter, (Public awareness, Issue 8, Spring 2009)
4. Rickless, Samuel, Locke On Freedom, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/locke-freedom/ accessed 10 July 2021
5. Amartya sen, Development as freedom 18, ( Alfred A. Knopf, New York, September 18, 1999)
6. Gaus, Gerald, Shane D. Courtland, and David Schmidtz, Liberalism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/liberalism/ accessed 14 July 2021
7. V.N. Shukla, ConstitutionofIndia128, (Eastern book company, Lucknow, 13th edition, 2017)
8. Ranjit Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra 1965 SCR (1) 65, Justice Hidayatullah
9. K.A. Abbas vs Union of India 1971 SCR (2) 446, Justice Hidayatullah
10. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523, Justice Nariman, [21]
11. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 86 L. Ed. 1031, Justice Murphy

Written By:

1. Manav Kothary - first year law students at Karnavati University (United World School of Law) and
2. Vrunda Parekh - first year law students at Karnavati University (United World School of Law)