In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Government, citing concerns of maintaining public order and preventing potential unrest, issued a comprehensive executive order prohibiting all public gatherings of more than five perso
CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · PYQS · June 2026
In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Government, citing concerns of maintaining public order and preventing potential unrest, issued a comprehensive executive order prohibiting all public gatherings of more than five persons in several districts for an indefinite period. The order further imposed restrictions on the use of social media platforms, requiring prior permission from the authorities for organizing or promoting any form of protest or public assembly online. It also empowered local police authorities to take preventive action, including detention of individuals suspected of violating the order. A group of university students in Lucknow, concerned about the steep rise in educational fees and reduction in scholarships, organized a peaceful protest within their campus premises. The protest was non-violent, orderly and did not disrupt traffic or public services. Despite this, the police entered the campus, dispersed the gathering using force, detained several students and later blocked the social media accounts and messaging groups through which the protest had been organized. One of the students, Riya, whose account was blocked and who was briefly detained, filed a writ petition before the High Court. She contended that the government order imposes a blanket ban on fundamental freedoms, which is excessive and arbitrary. Her rights under freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly have been violated. The blocking of her social media account amounts to unlawful censorship and restriction on digital expression. The detention of students without any immediate threat to public order is illegal and violative of personal liberty. The State defended its action by arguing that the restrictions were imposed in the interest of public order and security. The executive has the authority to impose such restrictions in extraordinary circumstances. Based on the above situation answer the following questions: Explain whether the government order violates fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.
Answer & Explanation:
Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India guarantee freedom of speech and expression and right to assemble peacefully without arms. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India , the Court emphasized protection of online speech. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India , it was held that internet access is integral to free speech. Here the protest was peaceful and within campus. Hence blanket ban restricts both physical and digital expression and blocking social media directly impacts freedom of speech. The order can result in a prima facie violation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).
Topics: Constitutional Law
Related Questions in this Topic
- Explain the constitutional provisions governing government contracts under the Constitution of India. Discuss the essent...
- The Government of a State announces a welfare policy aimed at improving the living conditions of economically weaker sec...
- In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Government, citing concerns of maintaining public order and preventing potential unre...
- In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Government, citing concerns of maintaining public order and preventing potential unre...
- In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Government, citing concerns of maintaining public order and preventing potential unre...