The restrictions already enumerated in clauses (2) and (6) of Article 19 are exhaustive.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 113 OF 2016 KAUSHAL KISHOR                                             … PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION @ (DIARY) NO. 34629 OF 2017 J U D G M E N T V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

3. Thereafter,   the   Constitution   Bench,   by   an   order   dated 24.10.2019, formulated the following five questions to be decided by this Court:­ “…1)   Are   the   grounds   specified   in   Article   19(2)   in relation to which reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech can be imposed by law, exhaustive, or can restrictions on the right to free speech be imposed on grounds not found in Article 19(2) by invoking other fundamental rights?  2) Can a fundamental right under Article 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India be claimed other than against the ‘State’ or its instrumentalities?  3) Whether the State is under a duty to affirmatively protect the rights of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution   of   India   even   against   a   threat   to   the liberty of a citizen by the acts or omissions of another citizen or private agency?  4) Can a statement made by a Minister, traceable to any affairs of State or for protecting the Government, be   attributed   vicariously   to   the   Government   itself, especially   in   view   of   the   principle   of   Collective Responsibility?  5) Whether a statement  by a  Minister, inconsistent with the rights of a citizen under Part Three of the Constitution,   constitutes   a   violation   of   such constitutional   rights   and   is   actionable   as ‘Constitutional Tort”? …”