 The applicants argued that these restrictions issued by the Police were unconstitutional, contravening Article 10, which provides for freedom of speech (subject to any legislation that Parliament may pass restricting this freedom).In their view, a person ought to be able to speak on any issue he likes — if in doing so, he runs the risk of violating the law (questioning the "sensitive" provisions of the Constitution constitutes a crime under the Sedition Act), so be it.They argued that the Police did not have the right to impose prior restraint in the issuing of permits, and this was thus "ultra vires" (beyond the power granted by) Article 10.