Court cannot impose additional restrictions by using tools of interpretation.

9. That the Executive cannot transgress its limits by imposing an additional   restriction   in   the   form   of   Executive   or   Departmental instruction was emphasised by this Court in Bijoe Emmanuel  vs. State   of   Kerala50 .  The Court made it clear that the reasonable restrictions sought to be imposed must be through “a law” having statutory   force   and   not   a   mere   Executive   or   Departmental instruction.  The   restraint   upon   the   Executive   not   to   have   a back­door   intrusion   applies   equally   to   Courts.  While   Courts may be entitled to interpret the law in such a manner that the rights existing in blue print have expansive connotations, the Court cannot   impose   additional   restrictions   by   using   tools   of interpretation. What this Court can do and how far it can afford to go,   was   articulated   by   B.   Sudharshan   Reddy,   J.,   in  Ram Jethmalani (supra) as follows: “85. An argument can be  made  that  this  Court  can make exceptions under the peculiar circumstances of this case, wherein the State has acknowledged that it has not acted with the requisite speed and vigour in the case   of   large   volumes   of   suspected   unaccounted   for monies   of   certain   individuals.   There   is   an   inherent danger in making exceptions to fundamental principles and rights on the fly. Those exceptions, bit by bit, would then   eviscerate   the   content   of   the   main   right   itself. 50(1986) 3 SCC 615 46 Undesirable lapses in upholding of fundamental rights by the legislature, or the executive, can be rectified by assertion   of   constitutional   principles   by   this   Court. However, a decision by this Court that an exception could be carved out remains permanently as a part of judicial canon, and becomes a part of the constitutional interpretation itself. It can be used in the future in a manner and form that may far exceed what this Court intended or what the constitutional text and values can bear. We are not proposing that Constitutions cannot be interpreted in a manner that allows the nation­State to tackle   the   problems   it   faces.   The   principle   is   that exceptions cannot be carved out willy­nilly, and without forethought as to the damage they may cause.

86.One of the chief dangers of making exceptions to principles that have become a part of constitutional law, through aeons of human experience, is that the logic, and   ease   of   seeing   exceptions,   would   become entrenched as a part of the constitutional order. Such logic   would   then   lead   to   seeking   exceptions,   from protective walls of all fundamental rights, on grounds of expediency and claims that there are no solutions to problems   that   the   society   is   confronting   without   the evisceration   of   fundamental   rights.   That   same   logic could   then   be   used   by   the   State   in   demanding exceptions   to   a   slew   of   other   fundamental   rights, leading to violation of human rights of citizens  on a massive scale.

” 30. Again,   in  Secretary,   Ministry   of   Information   & Broadcasting,   Govt.   of   India  vs.  Cricket   Association   of Bengal51, this Court cautioned that the restrictions on free speech can be imposed only on the basis of Article 19(2). In  Ramlila Maidan   Incident,   in   re.52 ,  this Court developed a three­pronged 51(1995) 2 SCC 161 52 (2012) 5 SCC 1 47 test namely, (i) that the restriction can be imposed only by or under the authority of law and not by exercise of the executive power; (ii) that   such   restriction   must   be   reasonable;   and  (iii)  that   the restriction must be related to the purposes mentioned in clause (2) of Article 19.