LANDMARK CASE
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram
(1989) 2 SCC 574 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law
At a glance
- Citation: (1989) 2 SCC 574
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Constitutional law
- In one line: No. The state must protect free speech, and the danger must be proximate, like a spark in a powder keg.
1 Facts
A film's certificate was revoked over fears of protests about its reservation theme.
2 Issue
Can a film be banned over feared public reaction?
3 What the court decided
No. The state must protect free speech, and the danger must be proximate, like a spark in a powder keg.
4 Why it matters
A strong statement against the heckler's veto.
5 Think about it
What is the heckler's veto?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Constitutional law
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
- ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
- Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
- Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Rylands v. FletcherS.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.