The petitioners argued that various limitations and rules on newspapers infringed upon their right to freedom of speech and expression, and the Supreme Court of India granted their appeal. The petitioners contested the Newsprint Order of 1962, which regulated the sale, purchase, and use of newsprint, the import order of 1955, which restricted newsprint imports, and the newsprint policy of 1972-1973, which directly regulated newspaper size and distribution.
The newsprint policy was deemed illegal by the Court due to its quantitative limits, which were not warranted by a newsprint shortage. Nevertheless, the Newsprint Order and Import Control Order remained in place. This was because the Court recognized that press freedom encompassed both qualitative and quantitative aspects.
bennett coleman vs union of india Case Facts
- Media conglomerates participating in the newspaper’s publication filed the petition in this instance.
- The petitioner was submitted in opposition to Newsprint’s import regulations.
- They contested the import control order of 1955 as well as the 1962 Newsprint Order, which governs how newspapers use this.
- The government’s limitation on newspapers publishing more than ten pages is the reason the petitioner filed the lawsuit.
- For newspapers with fewer than 10 pages, the increase in pages may not exceed twenty percent.
bennett coleman vs union of india Issues
- Whether the corporate petitioners have the right or standing to make a claim based on fundamental rights.
- Whether the petitioners’ challenge involving infringement of basic rights was hindered by article 358 of the indian constitution.
- The question is whether the 1955 Order’s import limitations on newsprint violated article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.
- Whether the Newsprint Policy was lawful because it was covered under Import Control Order 1955’s Clause 5(1).
- Whether the 1962 Newsprint Order’s clauses 3 and 3A violated the terms of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution were violated by Remarks V, VII(a), VII(c), VIII, and X of the newsprint policy for 1972-73.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioners claim that the Newsprint Control Policy of 1972–1973 (NCPP) infringed upon their right to free speech and expression, which they utilized through their editorial staff and the publication medium.
- According to the petitioners’ attorney, daily publications with fewer than ten pages were only allowed a 20% increase under the 1972–1973 guideline. It was argued that because these journals had a discriminatory page quota of ten or more, they were in violation of Article 14. It was claimed that there was an irrational categorization behind the differences in rights between publications with an average of more than 10 pages and those with 10 pages or less.
- It was claimed that since Article 358 does not apply to laws or executive actions made before the declaration of emergency, it is not applicable. The petitioners claimed that the Newsprint Policy was an extension of the previous newsprint policy, which had been in place for a decade up until the declaration of emergency in 1971.
- The petitioners contended that the government’s newsprint policy was unconstitutional because it did not comply with clause 5(1) of the Import Control Order 1955 and would instead decrease circulation than boost it. They also contended that the policy detailed in Remark V will not increase circulation.
Respondent:
- In a demurrer, the Additional Solicitor General presented two arguments. First, it was argued that because the petitioners were corporations, they were ineligible to make use of fundamental rights. Second, it was argued that petitioners could not challenge a violation of fundamental rights because article 358 of the indian constitution prohibits such challenges.
- The Additional Solicitor General raised the threshold for the petition’s maintainability by invoking article 358 of the indian constitution. Nothing in Article 19 shall restrict the state’s authority to promulgate legislation or execute executive measures that it would be authorized to do in the absence of that section’s provisions while an emergency declaration is in force. Thus, the government claimed that during the declaration of the state of emergency, the petitioners were not allowed to challenge the 1972-1973 newsprint policy.
- There should be an open marketplace of ideas where truth would ultimately triumph, rather than monopolization of that market by the government or a private licensee, it was contended. There is no danger of monopolistic combination harm to the press.
- The reply argued that as long as newspapers do not request newsprint, there are no restrictions on the usage of any type of paper. This would prove that white printing paper is always available.
bennett coleman vs union of india Judgment
- The Court determined that the government’s limitations on newsprint imports were unconstitutional under article 19(1)(a) of the indian constitution. It concluded that the right to freedom of speech and expression requires the freedom of the press.
- The ruling stressed that any limitations on freedom of press must be reasonable in accordance with Article 19(2) and cannot be unjustified or overly harsh. It was determined that the limitations in this instance were excessive and not specifically designed to accomplish the desired goals.
- The Court decided that the government’s restrictions violated freedom of press because they directly affected newspaper circulation and content.
- The ruling also made clear that the freedom of press includes the power to allocate newsprint and decide on circulation volume free from government intervention.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
