a law restricting freedom of speech and expression cannot fall within the reservation under clause (2) of Art. 19,

 A Seven Member Constitution Bench of this Court, while upholding the challenge in  Romesh  Thappar  vs.  State  of Madras45 held as follows: ­ 44 1949 Act 45 AIR 1950 SC 124 32 “[12]  We are therefore of opinion that unless a law restricting   freedom   of   speech   and   expression   is directed solely against the undermining of the security of the State or the overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within   the   reservation   under   clause   (2)   of Art.   19, although the restrictions which it seeks to impose may have been conceived generally in the interests of public order. …” 16. An argument was advanced in Romesh Thappar (supra) that Section 9(1­A) of the 1949 Act could not be considered wholly void, as the securing of public safety or maintenance of public order would include the security of the State and that therefore the said provision, as applied to the latter purpose was covered by Article 19(2).  However, the said argument was rejected on the ground that where a law purports to authorise the imposition of restrictions on a fundamental right, in language wide enough to cover restrictions, both within or without the limits of Constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting such right, it is not possible to uphold it even so far as it may be applied within the Constitutional limits, as it is not severable.