Sadly, unrestricted freedom allows for loopholes and for lawbreakers to exploit these rights. So to ensure that rights are only used for the welfare of the society, there are a number of reasonable restrictions (under clause 2-6) that the government can adopt. In the landmark case of Hamdard Dawakhana vs Union of India 1959, the court held that advertising a ‘magic medicine’ with the intention of making commercial profits is a misuse of the freedom of the press and can not be defended using article 19. While the marketing expert must have thought that he/she is exercising his/her freedom of expression, such absolute freedom is not in the interest of the general public. In another case, Bennet Coleman vs Union of India 1972, when the Newsprint policy restricted the number of pages a newspaper could have, the court defended the rights of expression of the press and held that such qualitative or quantitative restrictions are unconstitutional.