Indian Express v. Union of India:[1]

Petitioner: Indian Express

Respondent: Union of India

Facts:

the petitioner for this situation were corporate organizations, workers, and shareholders thereof, and trusts which are part of the publication of newspapers. The import duty in the newspapers was challenged.  Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the duty under Finance Act 1981. Preceding this news, the newspaper enjoyed exemption from customs duty. And also, the newspapers were classified into small, medium, and large which encroaches article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law).

Issue:

The issue was raised imposition of a duty would adversely affect the expenses and dissemination and, hence the crippling effect on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g).

Held:

The Supreme Court of India held that the government of India has the power to imply taxes affecting the publication of newspapers and it also said that classifying the industry into small, medium, and large have rational nexus of fulfilling the objective of taxation and is not arbitrary. For the implication of duty, it was said that the press plays a crucial role in a democratic machinery. The courts have a duty to uphold the freedom of the press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that bridge that freedom. And it was realized that freedom of the press has three essential elements:

Freedom of access to all sources of information

Freedom of publication

Freedom of circulation

Conclusion: The Supreme Court of India directed the central government to look into its taxation policies by acknowledging that it causes a burden on newspapers. It was argued that increased cost on newspapers would drop a circulation affecting the freedom of speech and expression. The court reasoned that the government has the power to put taxes but within fair limits so that freedom of expression does not get encroached.

Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms[2]

Petitioner: Union of India

Respondent: Assn. for Democratic Reforms

Facts:

The Association of Democratic Reforms filed a petition with the High Court of Delhi to impel enforcement of certain recommendations related to how to make the electoral process in India more reasonable, transparent, and equitable. It was appealed by the Government of India that these recommendations were produced by the law commission and provided that the election commission needs to disclose information of personal background to the public including criminal history, educational qualifications, personal financial details, and other necessary information for determining candidate’s capacity and capability. The Union of India challenged the decision through an appeal to the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the Election Commission and the High Court did not have such powers and that voters did not have a right to such information.

Decision:

It was held by Supreme Court of India that:

“One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold opinions”.

Sakal Papers Ltd. V. Union of India[3]

Petitioner: Sakal Papers Ltd.

Respondent: Union of India

Facts:

Sakal newspapers were published by a private company. The company with two shareholders and two readers filed a petition in Supreme Court against the state. It was challenged by the company that constitutional validity of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 which was granted power by the Central Government to regulate the price of newspapers by relating it to their pages and allocation of space for advertising matter.

Issue raised:

The petitions argued that Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960, and Newspaper order is infringing the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.

 Decision Held:

The supreme court held that Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, and the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960 violated the constitutional right to speech. It was said that the laws made violate the right of speech and expression by restricting the number of pages and prices, it also violates article 19(2) as it does not come under reasonable restrictions. The court struck down the decision on the ground that it would help the small newspapers to grow.

Bennett Coleman and Co. V. Union of India:[4]

Petitioner: Bennett Coleman and Co.

Respondent: Union of India

Date of judgment: 30^th Oct. 1972

Facts:

The petitioners were media companies dealing with the publication of newspapers. The company challenged the import duties under Import Control Order 1955 and further, the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73 came with more restrictions which had four features:

1.     No new newspapers may be started by establishments owning more than two newspapers if at least one of which is daily;

2.      The total number of pages may not exceed ten;

3.      The increase in the number of pages may not be more than 20% for newspapers that are under ten pages;

4.     No-interchangeability of newsprint may permit between different newspapers of the same establishment or between different editions of the same paper.

The petitioners were restricted to make circulation under newsprint policies in quota limit and it was violative of Article 19(1)(a). the respondent gave a counter comment that companies do not enjoy fundamental rights, as it is available only to natural persons.  As per the restrictions placed were fair.

Issues raised:

·       Whether the petitioners being companies could invoke fundamental rights?

·       Whether the restriction on newsprint import under the 1995 order was violative of Art. 19 (1) (a) of the constitution?

·       Whether the newsprint Policy fell within clause 5(1) of the Import, Control Order 1955 and was valid?

·       Whether clauses 3 and 3A of clause 3 of the 1962 Newsprint Order were violative of Arts. 19(1) (a) and 14 of the Constitution?

Judgment:

The judgment was delivered by J. Ray and it was said that petition was maintainable. Being a company does not restrict them to claim relief for violation of rights of shareholders and editorial staff (who were petitioners) Similarly, like Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India the decision was struck holding it violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (2). The grounds were considered not reasonable.

Express Newspaper v. Union of India[5]

Petitioner: Express Newspaper

Respondent: Union of India

Facts:

In this case, the clauses of Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1965, whose object was to secure the amelioration of conditions of the working journalists and other persons employed in a newspaper establishment, was challenged as interfering with the right of freedom of Press. It was urged that as the provisions of the Act specified the wages and conditions of service of the working journalists, it would impose heavy financial burdens on the newspaper establishments, which did not have the resources to meet the new financial responsibilities and might have to close down. It had, therefore, the effect of having a direct and preferential burden on the press and had a tendency to curtail circulation and thereby narrow the scope of dissemination of information.

Held:

The court was convinced that the working conditions in the newspaper industry were not satisfactory and a lot of working conditions needs to be improved. “Those employers who are favorably situated, may not feel the strain at all while those of them who are marginally situated may not be able to bear the strain and may inconceivable cases have to disappear after closing down their establishments. That, however, would be a consequence that would be extraneous and not within the contemplation of the Legislature. It could, therefore, hardly be urged that the possible effect of the impact of these measures inconceivable cases would vitiate the legislation as such. All the consequences which have been visualized in this behalf…would be remote and depend upon various factors which may or may not come into play. Unless these were the direct or inevitable consequences of the measures enacted in the impugned Act, it would not be possible to strike down the legislation as having that effect and operation. A possible eventuality of this type would not necessarily be the consequence which could be in the contemplation of the Legislature while enacting a measure of this type for the benefit of the workmen concerned” So the impugned legislation in attempting to ameliorate the conditions of the working journalists was characterized as directed towards the business aspect of newspaper activity and the repercussions on the news and views aspect was not of that order so as to affect adversely the right of circulation.[6]

Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India:[7]

The writ petition filed by Mahesh Bhatt challenged the lawfulness of the provisions of the cigarette and other tobacco products. The Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply, and Distribution) Act, 2003 defines the advertisement includes any visible representation by way of notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document and also includes any announcement made orally or by means of producing transmitting light, sound, smoke or gas.

Held:

it was held that advertisements intend to make information and advice open and scatter data through media and different methods, it was decided that advertisements of tobacco items can’t as such viewed as indecent.  Utilization Consumption of tobacco or smoking is unfortunate yet isn’t unethical. The term decency is more expansive. commercial advertisements are entitled to limited protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution if they are in the public interest. Commercial advertisements of tobacco products are not expressions protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Business ads will incorporate tobacco items. In any case, business promotions are extraordinary and different from the news. The reason and object behind news are to disperse data, ideas, and thoughts. Pre-predominant nature and character of the article, picture, and so forth, will decide if it is a business ad or a news thing/picture. Therefore, the advertisement comes into a different approach than of press.