RAMJI LAL MODI versus THE STATE OF U.P.
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is constitutionally valid as it imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order, protected by Article 19(2). The section is not wide enough to cover acts beyond the permissible limits and is not unconstitutional.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Ramji Lal Modi; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 05 April 1957
- Procedural Posture
- Original Criminal Jurisdiction (article 32 Petition) / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Freedom of Speech and Expression, Reasonable Restrictions, Insult to Religion, Validity of Section 295 a IPC
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ramji Lal Modi
Petitioner
State of Uttar Pradesh
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Original Criminal Jurisdiction (article 32 Petition) / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional for violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
- 2 Whether Section 295A is protected as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)
Ratio Decidendi
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is constitutionally valid as it imposes reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order, protected by Article 19(2). The section is not wide enough to cover acts beyond the permissible limits and is not unconstitutional.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is constitutionally valid
- Petition under Article 32 is dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment