sakal papers vs union of india Case Facts
- The petitioner in the present case is a for-profit newspaper publishing business.
- The company that publishes the Marathi newspaper is called SAKAL. It is a daily publication with six pages overall for five days and four pages in a single day, costing 7np.
- The Sunday version, with ten pages, costs 12np. The advertisement took up forty percent of the newspaper’s area; the remaining portion was devoted to news, articles, etc.
- The Press Commission was established by the government later in 1952 to address press-related concerns. The Commission produced a report with suggestions that served as the foundation for the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and Order, 1960.
- They contend that the newspaper corporation ought to set its prices in accordance with the quantity of pages it publishes, that is, more fees should be charged for more pages.
- The Act and the Order also specified the regions that needed to be promoted as well as how much space should be set aside for it.
- The Act and Order also specify the maximum number of supplements that may be released. The newspaper corporation filed a writ suit against the Act and the Order alongside two other petitioners. They further argued that article 19 1 a of the indian constitution is violated by the contested Act and Order.
sakal papers vs union of india Issues
- Whether the freedom of publication and circulation is a part of the freedom of speech and expression.
- Whether the petitioners’ rights under article 19 1 a of the indian constitution are violated by the contested Act and Order.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s attorneys claimed that the Newspaper Act and Newspaper Order infringed upon the Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) right.
- They argued that in order to comply with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, they would have to either raise the price from 7 nP to 8 nP each day or limit the total number of pages to 24 if the contested Act and order were enforced.
- They claimed that cutting the page count would result in less news content, which would impact the company’s distribution.
- They also emphasized that although newspapers can publish as many supplements as they like at the moment, the Order would make it illegal for them to do so without authorization from the government.
- They contended that the Order would essentially force them to raise costs or cut pages for almost all of the nation’s newspapers and prohibit them from issuing supplements as they presently do without needless limitations.
- They also underlined the necessity to distinguish publishing advertising as a trade activity from those covered by Article 19(1)(a).
Respondent:
- The attorneys representing the respondent contended that the Act attempts to control newspaper prices in relation to their pages.
- They conceded that the contested Order restricts the amount of space available for news and ideas, but they proposed that newspapers may increase their revenue in order to grow.
- They argued that by addressing monopolies and unfair competition, the Act and Order support free speech.
- The respondent justified limits in the public interest by claiming that price increases wouldn’t negatively impact circulation. They emphasized that page growth is constrained by newsprint imports, which are linked to 1957-page averages.
sakal papers vs union of india Judgment
- The Court ruled that the freedom of citizens to publish, distribute, and circulate information is part of their right to propagate their beliefs. Since citizens have the ability to spread information verbally or in writing, this right is encompassed within the right to freedom of speech and expression.
- The Court noted that newspaper companies had the freedom to determine their own prices prior to the contested Act and Order. Nevertheless, this liberty was impeded by the Act and Order. In accordance with article 19 1 a of the indian constitution, the Court agreed with the petitioner that even a little price rise or page reduction would have an impact on the newspaper’s circulation and impede the right to free speech and expression.
- The Court additionally ruled that the Act and Order violated Article 19(1)(a) since they restricted the amount of advertisement space available, which decreased the price of the publication.
- The Court ruled that, absent a valid reason, the government is not allowed to restrict the right to freedom of speech and expression on the basis that doing so will benefit the public as a whole or a particular subset of the public. This is in line with the Constitution’s Article 19(2).
- With regard to the right under Article 19(1)(g), the Court decided that although the State may impose restrictions on any enterprise in the public good, it cannot do so indefinitely if doing so will directly and immediately impede the freedom that the Constitution guarantees. Here, direct and instantaneous regulation of advertising space and prices restricted freedom.
- The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act of 1956 and the Order of 1960 were ruled unlawful by the Honorable Supreme Court after taking into account all of the previously mentioned arguments and case law.
- The Court clearly held that, in accordance with Article 19(1)(g), which fundamentally entailed reasonable constraints on the newspaper business, the publication of newspapers corresponded not only to freedom of speech and expression but also to operate a business.
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
