VIRENDRA versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 308 · Decided: 06-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
September 6. 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
VIRENDRA 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 
(and connected petition) 
(S.R. DAS, C.J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA, 
. 
J. L. KAPUR and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) 
Press Control-Notification issued by State Government on daily 
newspaper-Prohibition against publication of a particular matter-
Prohibition against entry into the State-Restrictions, if reasonable-
Jf violative of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression 
and right to carry on trade or business-The Punjab Special Powers 
(Press) Act, 1956 (No. 38 of 1956), ss. 2, _3-The Constitution of 
India, Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(!)(g), 19(2), 19(6). 
These two petitions challenged the constitutional validity of 
the Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956 (No 38, of 1956) 
passed by the State Legislature in the wake of the serious com-
munal tension that had arisen between the Hindus and the Akali 
Sikhs over the question of the partition of the State ·on a linguistic 
and communal basis. The petitioners were the editors, printers 
and publishers, respectively, of the two daily newspapers, Pratap 
and Vir Arjun, printed 
and 
published 
simultaneously 
from 
Jullundur and New Delhi, whose admitted policy was to support 
the "Save Hindi agitation". Two notifications under s. 2(1)(a) of 
the impugned Act were issued against the editor, 
printer and 
publisher of the two papers published from Jullundur by 
the 
Home Secretary prohibiting him from printing and publishing any . 
matter relating to the "Save Hindi agitation" in the two papers for 
a period of two months. Two other notifications in identical terms 
were issued under s. 3(1) of the impugned Act against the other 
petitioner, the editor, printer and publisher of the two papers in 
New Delhi prohibiting him from bringing ·into the Punjab the 
new_spapers printed" and published in New Delhi from the date of the 
publication of the notifications, Unlike s. 2(1) of the impugned Act 
which provided a time-limit for the operation of an order made 
thereunder as also for a representation to be made by the aggrieved 
person, s. 3 of the Act made no such provision. It was contended 
on behalf of the petitioners that both the sections were ultra vires 
the State Legislature inasmuch as they infringed Arts. 19(1) (a) arid 
19(1)(g) of the Constitution and were not saved by Arts. 19 (2) and 
19(6) of the Constitution. It was urged that the sections imposed 
not merely restrictions but a total prohibition against the exercise 
of the said fundamental rights by prohibiting the publication of all 
matters relating to the 'Save Hindi agitation' under. 2(1)(a) and 
by a complete prohibition of the entry of the two papers into the 
whole of the Punjab under s. 3(1) of the Act, that even supposing 
S.C.R 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
309 
that the sections merely imposed restrictions ·and not a 
total . 
prohibition, the restrictions were not reasonable, that the section 
gave unfettered and uncontrolled discretion to the State Govern-
ment and its delegate, that the Act did not provide for any safe-
guard against an abuse of the power, that the language of the sec-
tions being wide enough to cover restrictions both within and out-
side the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action 
they were ultra vires the Constitution and that the notification 
under s. 2(1)(a) of the Act as made would prevent even the publi-
cation of anything against the "Save Hindi agitation" and should 
have been restricted to such matters alone as were likely to pre-
judicially affect the public order. 
· 
· 
Held, that the restrictions imposed by s. 2(1)(a) of the 
impugned Act were reasonable restrictions within the meaning of 
Art. 19(2) of the Constitution and the petition directed against 
the notifications issued thereunder must fail, but since s. 3 of the 
Act did not provide for any time limit for the operation of an 
order made thereunder nor for a representation by the aggrieved 
party to the State Government, the restrictions imposed by it 
were not reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(6) of the Consti-
tution and the petition directed against the notifications made 
thereunder must succeed. 
Held further, that there can be no doubt that the right of 
freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right 
to 
propagate one's views and the several rights of freedaµi guaranteed 
by Art. 19(1) of the Constitution are exercisable throughout India 
but whether or not an

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