9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956. 2. Constitutionality of the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960. 3. Violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Impact on freedom of the press. 6. Impact on the business activities of newspapers. 7. Role of the Press Commission's recommendations. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956: The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, arguing that it was designed to curtail the freedom of the press and thus violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Act regulated the number of pages and price of newspapers, prescribed penalties for contraventions, and required government permission for issuing supplements. The court found that the Act directly interfered with the freedom of speech and expression by imposing restrictions on the number of pages a newspaper could publish based on its price, thus affecting its circulation. 2. Constitutionality of the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960: The Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960, implemented the provisions of the Act by setting a price-page schedule for newspapers. The petitioners argued that this Order would force newspapers to either increase their prices or reduce the number of pages, which would adversely affect their circulation and their ability to disseminate news and views. The court concluded that the Order placed a restraint on the freedom of speech and expression by mandating a price-page schedule, thereby directly impacting the volume of circulation. 3. Violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution: The petitioners contended that the Act and the Order violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. They argued that the restrictions imposed by the Act and the Order would either force newspapers to raise their prices, thereby reducing their circulation, or reduce the number of pages, thereby restricting the dissemination of news and views. The court held that the right to propagate one's ideas is inherent in the freedom of speech and expression, and any restriction on the volume of circulation directly interferes with this right. The court emphasized that the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to publish and circulate ideas without state interference, except for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). 4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that the Act and the Order violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They claimed that the provisions of the Act and the Order promoted the interests of some newspapers at the expense of others, leading to arbitrary and unreasonable classification. The court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail, as the primary focus was on the violation of Article 19(1)(a). 5. Impact on Freedom of the Press: The court recognized that the freedom of the press is an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). The court noted that any law that directly or indirectly restricts the circulation of newspapers or the dissemination of news and views would be an infringement of this freedom. The court emphasized that the press plays a crucial role in a democratic society by informing the public and shaping public opinion, and any interference with this role must be carefully scrutinized. 6. Impact on the Business Activities of Newspapers: The respondent argued that the Act and the Order aimed to prevent unfair competition and monopolistic practices among newspapers, thereby promoting healthy journalism. The court, however, held that the freedom of speech and expression cannot be curtailed under the guise of regulating business activities. The court stated that while the state may impose restrictions on business activities in the interest of the general public, it cannot do so by directly infringing on the freedom of speech and expression. 7. Role of the Press Commission's Recommendations: The respondent contended that the Act and the Order were based on the recommendations of the Press Commission, which aimed to prevent unfair competition and promote the development of smaller newspapers. The court acknowledged the recommendations but held that the means employed to achieve the desired end must not transgress the limits laid down by the Constitution. The court concluded that the Act and the Order directly interfered with the freedom of speech and expression, and therefore, could not be justified solely based on the Press Commission's recommendations. Conclusion: The court declared Section 3(1) of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, and the Daily Newspaper (Price and Page) Order, 1960, unconstitutional as they directly infringed on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the state cannot impose restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression under the pretext of regulating business activities or preventing unfair competition. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and struck down the impugned provisions.
|
