Article 19 of the Indian constitution allows legislation which imposes reasonable restrictions for the purpose of public order , health , decency , morals , security of the state , friendly relations with other nations , incitement to the commitment of an offence and public interest. Some of the rights mentioned in this article provide that reasonable restrictions can be imposed by laws for the public interest. Is public interest broader than the concept of public morals or narrower ? Many of the case laws that I have read state that what counts as public morals and public interest depends on the facts of the case , but what exactly does it mean ? What facts are relevant to determining what exactly are those two things and what is against them ? Is this something the judiciary can arbitrarily decide ?

I feel like a lack of clear definition or criteria does a huge disservice to all parties involved. I also feel like public morals is way too subjective and varies from time to time and it would be arbitrary to impose only one conception of it.

Is it even possible to come up with a precise definition of these terms ?

All case law will invariably state that the facts of a case will be the key determinant. But that doesn’t mean that the ratio decidendi of the case ceases to be binding. You seem to still be in college and overly affected by the goings on in the country. Please learn to interpret case law better. There are plenty of case laws on the meanings of the phrase you mentioned. Those case laws determine “how” public interest is to be identified in relation to a legislation. But what exactly means “public interest” will naturally depend on facts of each case. When something gets challenged in court, this is what is determined by the court, in light of the specific facts of the case. And if legal terms didn’t lend themselves to multiple interpretations, law as a field of study would never have existed - call “arbitrariness” if you may, but that would be simply incorrect. Even the term “arbitrariness” has very well been spelled out by the judiciary. Again, learn how to read judgments.

I'm in high school. My bad if it comes off as lazy of me. I agree it would help if I read case law more thoroughly but each time I read those , I seem to get the impression that the facts that are relevant are often very arbitrarily decided (however the problem might be my use and definition of the term)

I agree with your points though.