The Secretary, Ministry Of ... vs Cricket Association Of Bengal & ... on 9 February, 1995 Constitution cannot be ruled out, it may be held to be wholly unconstitutional and void. In other words, clause [2] of Article 19 having allowed the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression only in cases where danger to the State is involved, an enactment which is capable of being applied to cases where no such danger could arise, cannot be held to be constitutional and valid to any extent. 9. The above view taken by this Court was reiterated in Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. The State of Delhi [1950 SCR 6051 where Section 7 [1] (c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 as extended to the Province of Delhi, providing that the Provincial Government or any authority authorised by it in this behalf, if satisfied that such action was necessary for preventing or combating any activity prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order, may pass an order that any matter relating to a particular subject -or class of subjects shall before publication be submitted for scrutiny, was held as un- constitutional and void. The majority held that the said provision was violative of Article 19 [1] [a] since it was not a law relating to a matter which undermined the security of, or tended to overthrow the State within the meaning of the then saving provision contained in Article 19 [2]. The Court further unanimously held that the imposition of precensorship of a journal was a restriction on the liberty of the press which was an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression declared by article 19 [1](a). 10. In Hamdard Dawakhana [Wakf] Lal Kuan, Delhi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1960) 2 SCR 671], the Court held that the object of the Drugs and Magic Remedies [Objectionable Advertisements] Act, 1954 was the prevention of self-medication and self-treatment by prohibiting in- struments which may be used to advocate the same or which tended to spread the evil. Its object was not merely the stopping of advertisements offending against morality and decency. The Court further held that advertisement is no doubt a form of speech but its true character is reflected by the object for the promotion of which it is employed. It is only when an advertisement is concerned with the expression or propagation of ideas that it can be said to relate to freedom of speech but it cannot be said that the right to publish and distribute commercial advertisements advertising an individual's personal business is a part of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. The provisions of the Act which prohibited advertisements commending the efficacy, value and importance in the treatment of particular diseases of certain drugs and medicines did not fall under Article 19 [1] (a) of the Con- stitution. The scope and object of the Act, its true nature and character was not interference with the right of freedom of speech but it dealt with trade and business. The provisions of the Act were in the interest of the general public and placed reasonable restrictions on the trade and business of the petitioner and were saved by Article 19 [6]. The Court further held that the first part of Section 8 of the impugned Act which empowered any person authorised by the State Government to seize and detain any document article or thing which such person had reason to believe, contained any advertisement contravening the provisions of the Act imposed an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of the petitioner and was unconsti- tutional. According to the Court, the said operation of Section 8 went far beyond the purposes for which the Act was enacted and failed to provide proper safeguards in regard to the exercise of the powers of seizure and detention as had been provided by the legislature in other statutes. However, if this operation was ex- Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/539407/ 5