The first case that addressed the right to a free press directly was romesh thappar vs state of madras (1950). The press is sometimes referred to as the fourth estate, and for good reason, its independence allows it to expose the unethical behaviour of those in positions of authority to the wider public. India’s political and legal landscape has changed as a result of numerous noteworthy Supreme Court rulings.
romesh thappar case Facts
- As a well-known communist in his day, Mr. Thapar had severe doubts about Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru’s views, particularly with regard to his foreign policy.
- He expressed his skepticism in this regard in a few articles published in his weekly English journal, Crossroads.
- A communist movement was gaining traction in some areas of Madras at the time the petitioner was writing these pieces, and the authorities believed the petitioner’s articles would not assist to quell the fervor among the organization’s followers.
- The Madras government issued an order in March 1950 prohibiting the magazine’s admission and distribution inside specified territories.
- The madras maintenance of public order act, 1949, Section 9(1-A), which gave the government the authority to forbid the journal’s circulation, sale, or distribution in specific Madras province areas in the interest of maintaining “public order” or guaranteeing “public safety,” was the basis for the order’s issuance.
- Mr. Thapar, who was offended by this government directive, petitioned the Supreme Court, claiming that it violated his basic right to free speech and expression.
romesh thappar vs state of madras Issues
- The madras maintenance of public order act’s Section 9(1-A) order was subject to a constitutional review to determine if it violated article 19(1)(a) of the indian constitution or fell under the parameters of the Indian Constitution’s Article 19(2).
- Furthermore, because the challenged provision violated the fundamental right to free speech and expression, the Court was required to determine whether it violated Article 13(1) of the Constitution.
- The State of Madras’ Advocate General added another point, stating that the petitioner must first file a case with the High Court in accordance with Article 226 and then go to the Supreme Court when that remedy has been exhausted.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The Governor of Madras’s order, which prohibited Cross Roads’ distribution, publication, and admission into the State of Madras, violated article 19(1)(a) of the indian constitution, which guarantees the basic right to freedom of speech and expression.
- The madras maintenance of public order act, 1949, Section 9(1-A), infringed upon the petitioner’s basic right to freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed by Section 13(1) of the Constitution.
Respondent:
- The petitioner should have gone to the Madras High Court under Article 226 for relief before going to the Supreme Court under Article 32, according to the Advocate-General of Madras.
- It was maintained that the petitioner’s argument that the High Court should have been the first to be addressed was supported by established procedural standards, such as the need to request relief from subordinate courts before going to higher courts.
romesh thappar vs state of madras Judgment
- The petitioner was allowed to apply to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights before first going via the High Court, the Court determined, finding that the two remedies, going to the High Court and going to the Supreme Court, were equivalent in nature.
- In ruling on the validity of the contested order that forbade the weekly magazine’s admission and distribution within specific Madras neighbourhoods, the Court stated that the right to free speech and expression encompasses the right to the spread of ideas, which can only be guaranteed through distribution.
- The Court determined that, absent the reservation in Article 19(1)(a) of the impugned Act protecting Section 9(1-A) of the impugned Act, the impugned decision was clearly in breach of Article 19(1)(a) (2).
- The Court examined the origins of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, which were found in the Government of India Act of 1935 and the Constituent Assembly debates (1-A), in order to assess the legality of Section 9.
- The Severability Doctrine, which determines whether deleting or severing a provision from the statute alters the legislative intent and, if it does not, renders the challenged piece unlawful, was finally employed by the Court.
- Using the severability criterion, the majority determined that Section 9(1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act violated Part III (Fundamental Rights) provisions and was therefore extra vires, unlawful under Article 13(1) of the Constitution.
- In his dissenting opinion, Justice Fazal Ali stated that the challenged Act placed legitimate restrictions on the right to free speech and expression and that preserving calm was essential to protecting state security.
The case is remembered as a turning point in Indian legal history because it upholds the importance of fundamental rights in democracies, especially the freedom of speech and expression. In its ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the complex relationship between state interests and individual liberties, highlighting the necessity of reasonable limitations on basic rights in order to protect public safety and order.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
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
