Abstract

Public opinion cannot influence jurisprudence as our constitution is a beacon of freedom. The Indian Constitution protects citizens' rights of free oration & assembly. Constitution pledges the liberty of inflection for plebeians. While Section 377 limits LGBT people's ability to express themselves freely. Both freedoms are discussed in this article, with an emphasis on the Indian constitutional framework. The junction of the constitutional text and the criminal process code enables and restricts the freedom of speech, making it a topic of particular relevance within the area of constitutional law. There are no statutory impediments on the right to congregation. Only the Apex Court's precedents & the hindrances set by the Constitution determine its nature and scope. When it comes to respecting individuals' right to privacy, the Court's rationale falls short. The Supreme Court has not weighed in on the issue of whether or not auxiliary conceptual translucence on the two freedoms is required. Neither has the Court discussed any principles that it must use as a basis for its interpretation of these liberties. Instead, the court has been conducting case-by-case evaluations and developing its own interpretations of the law based on the many groups of people who enjoy these rights and liberties. Instead of having a conversation about strikes, for example, it makes some groups of people (such as attorneys, government workers, and members of critical services regimes) exempt from participating in such actions.

Keywords