1. Bennett Coleman and Co. vs Union of India AIR 1973 SC 106

The petitioners (Bennett Coleman and Co.) challenged the restrictions imposed on the import policy of the newsprint under Import Control Order 1955 and under the Newsprint Order 1962. The newsprint policy of 1972-73 then placed further restrictions under four features:

•established newspaper companies cannot start new newspapers if they already own two newspapers, one of which is a daily newspaper.

•The maximum limit on the number of pages in a newspaper was set to be 10 pages.

•Increase in the number of pages shall not be more than 20% for newspapers that are under 10 pages.

•interchanging newsprint was not allowed between different papers of same establishment or between different editions of the same newspaper.

Under these newsprint policies, even within the quota limit, the petitioners were not allowed to make adjustments and hence this was challenged under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India i.e., Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Held:

The Supreme Court in this case held that the petitioner’s case was maintainable and stated that even though the petitioner was a company, it cannot be taken as a bar to not award relief for violation of rights of shareholders and staff. The Court also said that as claimed by the respondents, Article 358 cannot be applied to laws passed before the proclamation of emergency and hence, the newsprint policy can be challenged in the court.

The Court noted that freedom of press is an essential element of Article 19(1)(a) and the absence of an express mention of such freedoms as a special category was irrelevant.[1]

The court observed that the fixing quotas can easily tackle the problem of shortage of newsprint and said that the direct interference with respect to page limit and other such regulations were irrational and no justified. Limiting the pages of a newspaper would mean forcing the establishment to reduce the content or reducing advertisement which would cause them a economic downfall which hence, would limit the freedom of speech and expression.

 The Court held that the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73 was unconstitutional. And the case went in favor of the petitioners.

2. Hamdard Dawakhana vs Union of India

This case was related to the advertisement of prohibited drugs and commodities. The product sold by the petitioners was said to have self-medicating values which was advertised to the general public as well. The petitioners in the case alleged that they were experiencing difficulty to advertise their product as many objections were raised against their advertisements.

The Supreme Court in this case held that an obnoxious advertisement cannot come within the scope of Article 19(1)(a). It held that an advertisement as an ‘commercial speech’ has two things to keep in mind:

•advertisement which is a commercial transaction is just spreading of information regarding the product.

•it is beneficial for the public if the information is available to them through the means of advertisement.

Examined from another angle, the court said that the public at large has a “right to receive” the “commercial speech”. Article 19(1)(a) not only guaranteed freedom of speech and expression but also protects the right of an individual to listen, read and receive the said speech.[2]

Advertisement of prohibited drugs would, therefore, not fall within the scope of Article 19(1)(a).

3. Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras

In this case, the petitioner used to a publish and circulate a newspaper names “cross roads” which used to review and criticize the schemes and activities of the government of Madras. The government of Madras banned the entry and circulation of this newspaper in the state by the restriction of public safety grounds.

The supreme court in this case said that the right of circulation of the newspaper lies solely with the establishment i.e., the company of the newspaper and the state of Madras cannot interfere with the same. The ground of Public safety under Article 19(2) is not a reasonable restriction and hence a ban on entry and circulation of the newspaper by the state of Madras cannot be imposed under Article 19(2).

4. Prabha Dutt vs Union of India

The petitioner, Smt Prabha Dutt Chief reported of Hindustan Times filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution asking for a writ directing the respondent, the superintendent of Tihar Jail, to allow her to interview the two convicts named Billa and Ranga who are charged with death sentence for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitions filled by them to the President of India for communication of the sentence are reported to have been rejected by the President recently.

The Supreme Court in this case directed the Superintendent of the Tihar Jail to allow the representatives of a few newspapers to interview two death sentence convicts under Article 19(1)(a) as “the right under Article 19(1)(a) is not an absolute right, nor indeed does it confer any right on the press to have an unrestricted access to means of information”.[3]

5. Indian Express Newspaper vs Union of India

Prior to this notification newsprint had enjoyed exemption from customs duty. The petitioners challenged the import duty on newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act 1981, as modified by a notification under the Customs Act 1962 with effect from March 1, 1981. They contended that after this notification the costs and circulations had been affected highly and it also had a crippling effect on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the freedom to practice any trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g).

The Supreme Court of India in this case held that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution does not use the phrase “freedom of press”[4] in its language, but it is contained within Article 19(1) (a). There cannot be any interference with the freedom of press in the name of public interest. The purpose of the press is to enhance public interest by publishing facts and opinions, without which a democratic electorate cannot take responsible decisions. It is, therefore, the primary duty of courts to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it contrary to the constitutional mandate[5]

6. A. Abbas vs Union of India

The issue of censorship of films under Article 19(2) was mentioned in this case in front of the Supreme Court of India. Films are divided into two categories i.e., “U” films which can be viewed by the general public of all ages and “A” that can only been shown to adults i.e., people of or above the age of 18 years can only view the film. This was done under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to protect the viewers.

The petitioner’s film got an “A” certificate instead of “U” certificate and hence, the petitioner challenged the censorship in the court. He said that it was a clear violation of his fundamental right i.e., freedom of speech and expression.

It was held by the court that “it had been almost universally recognized that motion pictures must be treated differently from other forms of art and expression, because a motion picture’s instant appeal both to the sight and to hearing, and because a motion picture had become more true to life than even the theatre or any other form of artistic representation. Its effect, particularly on children and immature adolescents was great.”[6]

Hence the court upheld the censorship on the film and the case was dismissed.

7. People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India

The validity of Section 33B of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was challenged by the People’s Union of Civil Liberties. Section 33B provided that an electoral candidate is not bound to disclose any information apart from that required. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms[7], the Supreme Court of India recognized that the right to know about electoral candidates is well within the ambit of right to information available under the right to freedom of speech and expression described in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, it stated that information about the criminal background of candidates, assets and liabilities of candidates and their family members, and educational qualifications of candidates should be available to the voters as a part of the rights.

It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Telephone tapping, therefore, violates Article 19(1) (a) unless it comes within the grounds of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).[8]

8. Emmanuel vs State of Kerala

Three students were expelled from their school in 1985 for not singing the national anthem of India. Since they were from the religious background of Jehovah’s witnesses, they just stood silently during the national anthem of India in the School’s morning assembly. After they were expelled from school, their father filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala stating that the expulsion was a direct violation of their fundamental right which is Freedom of speech and expression and freedom of religion which is protected by the Indian Constitution under Article 19 and 25. The court dismissed the case and stated that “no words or thoughts in the national anthem was capable of offending religious convictions”[9]. Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, their father later filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court held that the expulsion of school children merely for not singing the national anthem was a direct violation of their right to freedom of expression. It was stated that there were no provisions of law that made the three students or any individual obliged to sing the national anthem and the state of Kerala’s department of education lacked statutory force to require school children to participate.

9. Sakai Papers Pvt. Lmt. vs Union of India

The constitutional validity of the Newspaper Act, 1956 is being challenged by the petitioners of the case which are a private newspaper company, its shareholders, and the two readers. The newspaper act empowers the central government to regulate the cost of the newspapers with respect to the number of pages and the allocation of space for advertisements. The company also challenges the Daily Newspaper Order, 1960 under the Newspaper Act which was passed by the government to start such regulations. The act and order regulated the prices a publisher could charge for the newspaper and hence the petitions argued that both the Newspaper Act and the Newspaper Order violated the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

The court in this matter held that the laws mentioned by the petitioners i.e., Increasing advertisement prices would either result in the increase in the cost of the newspapers or would result in reduced number of pages which would be dissemination of ideas which indeed is a fundamental aspect of right to freedom of speech and expression. The court held that the right to freedom of speech cannot be taken away from a company with the sole objective of restricting business and hence the Newspaper Act and Newspaper Order were said to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India.

10. R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu

A prisoner named Auto Shankar, who was held for murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment and death sentence, wrote an autobiography when he was imprisoned. The book discussed his personal life and his relation with many senior police officials, lot of whom have said to be involved with him in many illegal acts. Before his death sentence, he handed over the book to his wife after informing the prison officials of the same and the wife gave the book to the petitioners i.e., the editor, the associate editor, the printer and the published of a Tamil Magazine, for its publication. The Inspector General, when he got to know about the book, wrote to the published stating that the contents of the book were false and untrue, and that the book was defamatory in nature and that strict legal action will be taken against them if they proceed with publishing the book. The Tamil Magazine editor filed a petition against the Inspector General of Prisons to prevent him from violating their and the prisoner’s right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Supreme Court in this case held that the magazine had the right to publish the autobiography written by the prisoner, without his consent or authorization. It held that the state cannot prevent the publication but may sue the plaintiff for defamation after the article is published, but they had no right to stop the petitioners from publishing the book. It held that every person has the right to publish his/her autobiography because of his/her fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and hence, the case was in favor of the petitioners.

Refences:

• https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu
• https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/freedom-of-speech-and-expression/
• http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1847/Freedom-of-Press—Article-19(1)(a).html
• http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-572-constitution-of-india-freedom-of-speech-and-expression.html
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/freedom-of-speech-and-expression/
• https://www.legitquest.com