Case Name: Bennett Coleman vs Union of India [Bennett Coleman Case]
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 106
Date of Judgement: October 30, 1972
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench:Sikri, S.M. (Cj),Ray A.N.Reddy, P. Jaganmohan
Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien Beg, M. Hameedullah
Parties: Petitioner: Bennett Coleman & Co. And Others
Respondent: Union of India
HEADNOTE:
The case of Bennett Coleman V Union of India signifies the incumbent role of the press for mustering the Indian democracy and its vibrant Constitution. The Supreme Court of India in this case held that the freedom of the press is an important facet of the fundamental right of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.The expression “Freedom of Press” signifies that everyone features a right to print and publish with no interference from the general public authority or the other state. No extra privileges can be asserted by the press than what is just open to a common citizen. And thus, right of freedom of press is subject to the reasonable restrictions laid down in Article 19(2) of the constitution.
ISSUES RAISED:-
The issues raised in Bennett Coleman vs Union of India under consideration were as follows:
•Whether the petitioners, being corporate entities, had the standing to invoke fundamental rights.
•Whether Article 358 of the Constitution served as a impediment to any challenge by the petitioners regarding violations of fundamental rights.
•Whether the restrictions imposed on newsprint import under the 1955 Order amounted to a violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
•Whether the Newsprint Policy fell within the purview of Clause 5(1) of the Import Control Order 1955 and was consequently valid.
•Whether clauses 3 and 3A of clause 3 of the 1962 Newsprint Order infringed upon the provisions of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.
•Whether Remarks V, VII(a), VII(c), VIII and X of the Newsprint Policy for 1972-73 were in contravention of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.
JUDGMENT:
On the merits, the Courts pointed out that freedom of the press was ag necessary part of Article 19(1)(a) and that there was also an orthogonal absence of an associate degree defining certain freedoms as a special class. The press was widely considered to be a vital part of freedom of speech.The Court jointly found that by fixing the quotas, the scarcity of paper could well be resolved. Direct intervention in terms of page limits and alternative rules, however, was not even feasible. The page cap suggested that newspapers will either lose economic profitability due to a drop in adsorb be forced to minimize. News content. This could limit freedom of speech as a result of a decline in circulation due to accumulated prices in the initial case and a quantitative constraint on the material in the second case.The Court found that press freedom had both quantitative and qualitative components and, thus, that quantitative constraint had deep-rooted limits on freedom of speech. Since they weren’t even on the premise of shortage of paper, they might not be thought of to be cheap restrictions. The Court held that the paper Policy of 1972-73 was unconstitutional. However, the paper Order and Import management Order were thought of to not be the supply of those restrictions and weren’t smitten down.
CASE ANALYSIS:-
The Supreme Court of India agreed with petitioners that certain limits and controls on media harmed the right to freedom of expression and speech. The petitioners challenged the Import Order 1955’s restrictions on newsprint imports, the Newsprint Order 1962’s regulation of newsprint sale, acquisition, and use, and the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73’s direct management of newspaper size and circulation. The Newsprint Policy was declared to be unlawful because its quantitative limits were not justified by a shortage of newsprint; nonetheless, the Newsprint Order and Import Control Order were not set down.
CONCLUSION:-
The Court concluded that the freedom of the press involved both qualitative and quantitative dimensions, the Newsprint Control Policy was unconstitutional as it’s being violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(a) as it’s quantitative restrictions were not justified by a shortage of newsprint . The Newsprint Order and Import Control Order were not struck down.
If newsprint was in short supply, then there could be no objection to ration it equitably but to further dictate the number of pages that could be published, and ban any new edition was clearly aimed at controlling the newspapers. As Justice Ray rightly observed, the ostensible object of control of newsprint had been subverted to newspaper control.
By Koyal Anthony
(Legal Intern at Nyaya Nishtha)