9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956 under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether Sections 2 and 3 of the impugned Act infringe the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. Whether the restrictions imposed by Sections 2 and 3 are reasonable under Articles 19(2) and 19(6). 4. Whether the Notifications issued under Section 2(1)(a) are too broad and potentially suppress legitimate criticisms. 5. Whether the Notifications issued under Section 3 lack necessary safeguards and are thus unreasonable. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956: The petitioners challenged the validity of the Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956, claiming it infringed their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Act was enacted to prevent and combat activities prejudicial to the maintenance of communal harmony affecting public order. 2. Infringement of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners argued that Sections 2 and 3 of the impugned Act imposed total prohibitions rather than mere restrictions on their fundamental rights. They contended that the Notifications under Section 2 prohibited the publication of all matters related to the "save Hindi agitation," and those under Section 3 imposed a complete prohibition against the entry and circulation of their newspapers in Punjab. The court, however, held that the restrictions did not amount to a total prohibition as the petitioners could still publish and circulate their newspapers in other parts of India. 3. Reasonableness of Restrictions: The court examined whether the restrictions imposed by Sections 2 and 3 were reasonable under Articles 19(2) and 19(6). The court referred to the test of reasonableness laid down in The State of Madras v. V. G. Row, emphasizing that the test should be applied to each individual statute and consider the nature of the right, the purpose of the restrictions, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied, and prevailing conditions. The court found that the restrictions imposed by Section 2 were reasonable given the serious tension between Hindus and Akalis and the need to maintain public order in the border state of Punjab. 4. Broadness of Notifications under Section 2(1)(a): The petitioners argued that the Notifications under Section 2(1)(a) were too broad, preventing them from publishing any article, news item, or letter related to the "save Hindi agitation," even if it was against the agitation. The court held that if the section is valid, the exercise of the power is dependent on the subjective satisfaction of the State Government or its delegate. The court found no substance in the argument that the Notifications should have been qualified to prohibit only those publications likely to affect public order. 5. Lack of Safeguards in Section 3: The court noted that while the exercise of powers under Section 3(1) was subject to the same condition of satisfaction as Section 2(1)(a), Section 3 lacked a time limit for the operation of an order and did not provide for any representation to the State Government. The absence of these safeguards made the provisions of Section 3 unreasonable. Consequently, the court allowed the petition challenging Section 3. Conclusion: - Petition No. 95 of 1957, challenging the Notifications issued under Section 2(1)(a), was dismissed. - Petition No. 96 of 1957, challenging Section 3, was allowed. - No order as to costs was made for these applications.
|
