Write a precis of the passage given below in about one-third of its length. Please do not give any title to it. The precis should be written in your own language

Freedom of speech and individual liberty is enshrined in Articles 19(1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution. However, these rights, like all others, are not absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions. What would be a reasonable restriction is an extremely important matter to consider, as on that would depend on the validity of several detention orders and prosecutions in India.

        In America, the earlier decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court had laid down the ‘bad tendency’ test to determine whether the restriction was reasonable or not. This test was that free speech or acts could be prohibited if they were likely to adversely affect the welfare of the public. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a celebrated judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, felt that the ‘bad tendency’ test was vague. In Schenck v. United States (1919), he laid down the ‘clear and present danger’ test to determine the reasonability of the restriction. This test means that a restriction would be reasonable only if the speech or action constitutes a clear and present (and not remote) danger to state security or public order.The ‘clear and present danger’ test was not consistently followed by the U.S. Supreme Court, though. In Dennis v. United States  (1951), for instance,  a ‘balancing’ test was adopted.In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the ‘clear and present danger’ test was expanded, and the ‘imminent lawless action’ test was laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which the court has followed since. This test states, “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit the state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation, except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action”. The word ‘imminent’ used in the judgment is very important. Imminent  means ‘likely to happen very soon,’ ‘at hand,’ or ‘fast approaching.’ Two decisions of the Indian Supreme Court — Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam (2011) and Arup Bhuyan v.State of Assam (2011) — followed the decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, and so Brandenburg has become the law of the land in India too.