According to the Indian Constitution, citizens, who are basically natural persons, are granted their fundamental rights. However, legal entities have some rights as well. A recent case involved MediaHub Pvt. Ltd., an Indian media company, which claimed that the government had violated its fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression by placing restrictions on its broadcasting content. Some claim that MediaHub shouldn't be given the same range of rights as natural persons because it is a corporation.
Which of the following inquiries is relevant to the MediaHub Pvt. Ltd. dispute?
Who are MediaHub Pvt. Ltd.'s principal stockholders and board members?
MediaHub Pvt. Ltd. serves how many subscribers and viewers?
Compared to natural persons, to what extent does the Indian Constitution grant the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression to legal entities like corporations?
Has the Indian government ever placed limitations on other media companies similar to this one?
The key question is how the Indian Constitution interprets and grants the right to freedom of expression to legal persons, such as corporations, as opposed to natural persons. The viability of MediaHub's claim and the government's responses will depend on how clearly this constitutional provision is understood.Hence option C is correct.