ADITHYA MODI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The right to acquire knowledge is a natural right. The acquisition of knowledge includes within its fold the receiving of information through natural perceptions like sight, hearing and other forms of human experience. To put a State control over the exercise of such natural rights either constitutionally or through a command of law has been of immense debate not only in this country in the post-constitutional era, but across the world, in support of such natural rights. This experience of a human being through perceptions is also susceptible to change with new ideas and new interpretations generated on the basis of more experience resulting from consequences. It is for this reason that one needs to be reminded of what Mathew Tobriner said on 3.2.1964 in the Wall Street Journal:

(2.) When the State in power under authority from the Constitution and the law proceeds to take control and regulate such rights vis-a-vis in relation to modern means of communication, the transmission and dissemination of such information that may be informative and educative comes in for legal debate. Many legal battles have been fought in favour of free information, the right to freedom of press being one of the shades of them. The right of an individual has been protected, at least in democracies and the statement of Justice Thurgood Marshall in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), is worth remembering that is extracted herein under:

(3.) The question is as to whether an individual has an absolute right of access to an untrammeled flow of information and any law that chills or restricts free dissemination should be immediately declared to be ultra vires, be it the Constitution or the laws?