LexSAKAL PAPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS versus THE UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
111!1 Tiu Colltclor of Cwtoms, M.adrtu v. N .ih.lla Sampalhu Cllltty AJ7an1ar ]. HMI S1Jltmber 25. 842 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] Criminal Appoals No. 33 of 1959, No. 126 of 1959, No. 123 of 1959, Civil Appeal No. 5ll of 1960 and Writ Petition No. ll8 of 1958 were not heard on the merits and wo havo not oxamined the_f~cta of any of those cases. Those appeals and petitions should, therofore, be posted for hearing in the usual oourse. Appeals ooa. 408 ond 40~ alloww. Appeal 110. 410 dism1'.ssed. RAKAL PAPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS v. THE UNIOX OF INDIA (B. P. SINHA, c. J., A.K. SARKAR, K.C.DASGUPTA, N. RA.JAGOPAJ,A AYYA:<'OAR and J. R. MunHOLKAH, JJ.) Fundatnmtal Right-Fretdom of •puch-Statut. rti}ulating number of pag'8 in ntw•paper according to price charg<d- Go1 ... titutio114lity of-N•w•paper (I'ri" and /'a~e) Act, 1956 (46 of 1966)-Daily New•paper (Priu and Page) Ord'", 1960- Co .... tittition of India, Art. 19 (1) (a). The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, empowered the Central Government to regulate the prices of newspapers in relation to their pagec; and sizes and to regulate the alloca- tion of space for advertising matter. u~der this Act the Central Government marle the Daily Ncw,papers (Price and Page) Order, 1960, thereby fixing the maximum number of pages that might be published by a newspaper according to the price charged and prescribing the number of >upplements that could be issued. The petitioner challenged the Act and the order as contravening Art. 1 q (1) (a) of the Constitu- tion. .. 1/i/4, that the Act and the Order were void as they violated Art I 9(1) (a) of the Constitution and v.ere not saved by Art. 19(2). The freedom of speech and expression guaran- teed by Art. 19(1) (a) included the freedom of the prm. For • .....,_ propagating his ideas a citiz~n had the right to publish them, to di.5$emlnate them and to circulate them, either by word of mouth or by writing. The right extended not merely to the matter which he was entitled to circulate but also to the • - , 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 843 volume of circulation. The impugned Act and Order placed restraints on the latter aspect of the right. But its very object the Act was directed against circulation and thus interfered with the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) did not permit the State to abridge this right in the interests of tho general public. Brij Bhushan v. The Siate of Delhi, [! 950] S. C. R. 605 Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, (!959j S. C. R. 12, Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras [1950] S.C.R. 594, State of Madras v. V. G. Row, [1952] S. C. R. 597, Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur & Weaving Co.,Ltcl. [1954] S. C. R. 674, Virendra v. The State of Punjab, cl958J S. C.R. 308 and IIamdard Dawakhana (wakf) v. Union of India, [19601 2 S. C. R. 671, referred to. Held, further, that the State could not make a law which directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the com· mercial aspect of the activities of newspapers. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petitions Nos. 331 of 1960 and 67-68 of 1961. Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement c.f Fundamental Rights. G. S. Pathak, R. Ganapathy Iyer, S. S. Shukla and G. Gopalakrishnan for tbe petitioners. M. G, Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B. Sen, R.H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respon- dent. H.P. Nathwani, J. B. Jadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent No. 1. J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath andP. L. Vohra, for the interveners Nos. 2 and 6. K. R. Ghoudhri, for intervener No. 3. S. T. Desai, TE. Udayarathnam andS. S. Shukla, for intervener No. 4. W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for intervener No. 5. S. T. Desai, E. Udayarathnam and S.S. Shukla, for the petitioners (In petitions N cs. 67 and 68 of 1961). 1961 Sakal Papm (P} Ltd., v. Thi Unfon 6/ India 196/ SoAa/ Pope!!, (I)) /4d., v. Th~ L'nion oj /qfia Mlldlio/J.ar J, S·U SUPREME G'OC.:RT REPORTS [I Uu2) 1961. September 25. The Jmlgmcut of the Comt was delivered Ly .'lkDHOLKAR, .J.-A matter of far-reaching impo!lancc affecting the freedom of the pre8s is raisl'd i11 these three petiti011s when·in the eonstitu· tionulity of the Ne\\'spaper (Price and Page) Act, 19iiu, and the Daily
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.