BENNET COLEMAN & CO. & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 30-10-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 25 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

757 
A 
BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
October 30, 1972 
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., A. N. RAY, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, K. K. 
B 
MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Co11.1titutio11 of India 1950, Arts. 14 & 19 (l)(a)-Newspri11t policy 
for 1972-73 whether violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 -Validity of Re-
"""*' V, Vll(a), Vll(c), V//J «nd X of Policy-Competency of share-
holders of company to file petitions under Art.32-Emergency proclaimed 
11nder Art. 358 of Cons1it11tio11-App/icatio11 in respect of enforcement of 
fundamental rights whether barred. 
The Import Control Order 1955 passed by the Central 
Government 
under ss. 3 and 4A of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 laid 
restrictions on the in1port Of newsprint. As 3.n essential commodity news-
print was also subject to control under s.3 of the Essential Commodities 
Act 1955. The Newsprint Control Order 1962 was passed under s. 3 of 
the Essential Commodities Act. 
Sub-clause 3 of clause 3 of the 1962 
Order states that no consumer of newsprint sh..tl in any licensing period con-
sume or use newsprint in excess of quantity authorised by the Controller 
from time to time. Sub-clause 3A of clause 3 states that no consumer of 
newsprint other than a publisher of text books of general interest shall use 
any kind cif 'paper other than newsprint except with the penilission in 
Writing of the Controller. 
Sub-clause ( 5) of Clause 3 of the 1962 Order 
st&es that in issuing an authorisation under this clause the Controller 
shall have regard to the principles laid down in the Import Control Policy 
with respect to newsprint announced by the Central Government from 
time to time. 
The newsprint Policy for 1972-73 was challenged in this 
Court in petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The questions that 
fell for consideration were : ( i) whether the petitioners being companies 
could invoke fundamental rights; (ii) whether Art. 358 of the Constitu-
tion was a bar to any chi:.llengc by the petitioners on violations of fun-
damental rights; (iii) whether the restriction on newsprint import under 
the 1955 Order was violative of Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; 
(iv) whetber the newsprint Policy fell within clause 5(1) of the Import, 
Control Order 1955 and was valid; (v) whether clauses 3 and -3A of 
clause 3 <if the 1962 Newsprint Order were violative of Arts. 19(1 )(a) 
and 14 of the Constitution; (vi) whether Remarks V, VIl(a), VIl(c), 
VIII, and X of the Newsprint Policy for 1972-73 were violative of Arts. 
19(1)(a) .and 14 of the Constitution because of the following objection-
able features : (a) No new p::.per or new edition could be started by a 
common ownership unit (i.e., a newspaper establishment or concern own-
ing tw'? '?r more new~ interest newspapers including at least one daily) 
even w1thm. the authorised quota cif newsprint; (b) there was a limitation 
on the ma_x1mun_i number of pages to 10, no adjustment being permitted 
~etween circ~l~t10n and the. pages so as to increase the pages; (c) no 
mtercha~geab1hty was permitted between different papers of common 
ownership unit or di!ferent editions of the same paper; ( d) allowance of 
20 per cent mcre.ase m page level up to a maximum of 10 had· been given 
'<? newspapers with less than 10 pages; (e) a big newspaper was prohi-
b1~ ~.d prevented from .increa~ing the number of pages, page area, and 
penod1c!t>: by reducmg circulat1on to meet its requirement even within 
its adm1sS1ble quota; (f) there was discrimination in entitlement between 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 2 S.C.R. 
newspapers with an avera.ge of more than 10 pages as compared with 
newspapers of 10 or Jess than 10 pages. 
Allowing the petitions, 
HELD : Per Majority (Sikri, C.J., Ray and Jaga.runohan Reddy, JJ.) 
(1) The Bank Nationalisation case has· established the view that the fun· 
damental rights of shareholders as citizens are not Jost when they associate 
to form a company.. When their fundamental rights as shareholders are 
impaired by State action their rights as shareholders are protected. 
The 
reooon is that the shareholders' rights are equally and necessarily affected 
if the rights of the company are affected. The rights of shareholders with 
regard to Article 19( 1) (a) are projected and maniiested by the newspapers 
· owned and controlled by the shareholders through the medium of the Cor-
poration. [773C·Dl 
Jn the present case, the individual rights of freedom of speech and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.