HINDUSTAN TIMES AND ORS. versus STATE OF UP. AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 01-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. ' 
./ 
HINDUSTAN TIMES AND ORS. 
1° . 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER I. 2002 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 16, 300A, 366(28), Vil Schedule 
list I Entry 92-£-recutive directives by State Governnrent-To deduct 5% of 
A 
B 
the a1nount payable for publication of Govern111ent advertise111ents in the C 
newspapers having circulation of more than 25,000 copies for the jimd for 
retiral benefit/or the H-'orkingjournalists-Legislativefield in relation to retiral 
benefits to 1vorkingjourna/ists covered by parlia1nenta1y Acts-No legislation 
in this regard by the State-legality of directives challenged-Held, the 
directives are bad in /a1v and beyond legislative con1petence of the State-
State Executive is denuded of any po1ver in respect of a 1natter with respect D 
whereto Parlia111ent has po11'er to 111ake la1r-Directives have deprived publisher 
of his right to property which is not permitted as Article 162 is subject to other 
provisions of lal-v including Article 300 A~Directives would a1nount to in1post 
and the sa111e cannot be ilnposed unless there is relationship of employer and 
employee between the contributor and beneficent and unless there exists a 
specific provision of /a111 operating in the field~ The bargaining pol-ver of the 
State and the publisher being unequal, any unjust condilion thrust upon the 
petitioner by the Stare, would be violative of Article 14 as also Section 23 of 
Contract Act-Contract Act, 1872-Section 23. 
E 
Word' and Phrases- 'law '-Meaning of in the context of Article 300A F 
of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
Respondent-State, in relation to grant of pension to working 
journalists, presented Bill in the Vidhan Sabha which lapsed. Thereafter, 
by its executive directives issued under Article 162 of the Constitution, 
State made "Pension and social Security Scheme for Full-time journalists" G 
and directed that at the time of payment of bills for publication of 
Government advertisements, in all newspapers having circulation of more 
than 25,000 copies, 5% of the amount thereof would be deducted as 
forming part of a fund for the purpose of granting pension to the working 
journalists. Petitioner/publisher challenged !he directions under Article 32 
27 
1-1 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A on the grounds that impost was not leviable as payment of retiral benefits 
to the working journalists was already covered by Parliamentary Act; that 
since the State Govt. had no legislative competence, orders in exercise of 
Article 162 could not have been issued; and that even if assumed that 
welfare of working journalists was within the competence of State 
B legislation, the same would be subject to Central legislation; and hence 
the directives were ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. 
Respondent-State contended that issuance of advertisement, being 
a matter of contract between the State and the publisher, petitioner cannot 
claim any legal right in relation thereto; and that if the petitioners are 
C not agreeable to the scheme, they were free to accept the offer of the 
respondent. 
Allowing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Impugned orders are unconstitutional and void and must 
D be declared as such. They were issued only because the Bill presented 
before the Vidhan Sabha in this behalf lapsed. The respondents thus, 
sought to achieve the same purpose which it intended to do by reason of 
a legislative enactment. The backdrop of formulation of 'Pension and social 
Security Scheme, for Fulltime Journalists' as also the impugned orders 
clearly go to suggest that by reason thereof the respondents have exercised 
E their Constitutional powers and the matter does not relate to a contract 
qua contract. 134-D-El 
1.2. The State Executive was, denuded of any power in respect of a 
matter with respect whereto Parliament has power to make laws, as its 
competence was limited only to matters with respect to which the 
F Legislature of the State has the requisite legislative competence. The State 
intended to make a legislation covering the same field but even if the same 
was to be made, it would have been subject to the Parliamentary legislation 
unless assent of the President of India was obtained in that behalf. Even 
assuming that the matter relating to the welfare of the working journalists 
G is a field which falls within Entry 24 of the Concurrent List, unless and 
until a legislation is made and assent of t

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