Privacy is a human right that cannot be alienated. It demands respect as it is attached to human dignity. But, in the current scenario, it is becoming a threat. Privacy is also acknowledged in UDHR, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in various court’s judgments. But we can witness the over-enthusiastic media is encroaching the personal right. There is a need to maintain a balance between two approaches. Since this is considered a complex process so, the present tries to explain the freedom of the press and the right to press in integration. balancing the right to privacy against freedom press is emerging it needs to be handled both public and private interests.

Keywords: press, privacy, and rights

INTRODUCTION:

Media is considered as a medium to express feelings, opinions, and views and on the other hand, it is also crucial for forming a base of opinions on different concepts such as regional, national, and international concepts. Therefore, the media is responsible for shaping the thinking ability of hundreds of people. In democratic state freedom of the press is considered as a cornerstone of democracy. And today India has four pillars in the nation. After guaranteeing Article 19 (1) (a) that is “freedom of speech and expression”[1] has given rise to the fourth pillar that is “Media”.[2] The role played by media is crucial it works as a watchdog. It tries to bring in notice all the wrongs exist in society by creating awareness with an intention for correction.[3] The fact is that press is a source of providing information to individuals. “the press is for them, the only window which opens upon the world, the sole means of escape through the prison whose walls are private interests, personal ties, and domestic concerns.” It is, therefore, in the interest of the people to ensure the freedom of the press for it is the best guarantee of their freedom (Justice George).

But as we know every coin has two sides with the right to press there comes attached right to privacy which may get violated. With the increased role and responsibilities of the press in daily life, the media needs to realize its boundaries. There is a duty on the media to respect the dignity of individuals by acknowledging the privacy of others. The individual has a “right to privacy”[4] which is guaranteed in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

FREEDOM OF PRESS:

In the Indian constitution, the freedom of the press has been guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) that is freedom of speech and expression. The purpose of Article 19 is to protect the rights of freedom of speech and expression. Every citizen has a right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19 holds the freedom to hold opinions. And restrictions on freedom are present in article 19 (2) that state can enforce in the interest of sovereignty and integrity, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, and morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense. The Freedom of Press has a long history in India from the British Rule. The Government of the British has enacted a number of legislations like the Indian Press Act, 1910, Indian Press (Emergency) Act, etc. There existed censorship on publication of news on activities related to the congress. But, after the period of independence, the outlook was changed and Article 19(1) (a) came into existence. It says: “All citizens shall have the right, to freedom of speech & expression.” The words speech and expression in India include freedom of the press. It means that the state cannot interfere with the content and circulation of the newspaper.[5]

Romesh Thapar v/s State of Madras[6]

In this case, it was observed by Patanjali Shastri a Chief Justice that “Freedom of speech and press lay at the foundation of all democratic organization, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular government is possible.” In this case, the English journal “Cross Road” was banned by the Government of Madras. It was claimed to be violative of freedom of speech and expression.

Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India^[7]

In this case, it was realized that the press is a crucial part of a democratic setup. The court has an obligation to preserve the freedom of the press. The court can invalidate laws and executory actions that violate freedom. The case has given three components and they are as follow:

1. Freedom of access to all sources of information;
2. Freedom of publication;
3. Freedom of circulation

Restriction on Freedom of Press in India:

Though India is blessed with freedom of speech and expression but the right comes with reasonable restrictions under Articl2 19 (2). Therefore, freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The right can be restricted only on the grounds mentioned above. The restrictions adhered are important in order to maintain regularity. The following are the restrictions:[8]

1)    Sovereignty and integrity

2)    Security of the state

3)    Friendly relations with foreign states

4)    Public order

5)    Decency or morality

6)    Contempt of court

Sakal Papers v/s Union of India[9]

The Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960 which fixed the number of pages and size which a paper could distribute at a cost was held to be violative of the opportunity of the press and not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).

Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India[10]

In this case, Bennett Coleman and Co. fixed the maximum number of pages, and the court struck down by the court by observing it as violative of the provision of Article 19 (2).

Right to Privacy:

Privacy is the newly emerging concept in the framework of law and still developing. It is difficult to define privacy and especially in terms of the law. the right to privacy is a crucial element for protecting individuals and protect the basis of individuality. The Indian constitution does not expressly deal with the Right to Privacy. But the scope of the right to privacy is explained under Article 21 which says: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”[11] the article is always explained by the judiciary broadly and deemed to include the right to privacy”. The journey of right to privacy started with “Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.”[12] In the case “Govind v. State of Madya Pradesh”[13] the Supreme Court acknowledged “The Right to be let alone.” And, for the first-time court acknowledged that it is true that the Indian constitution does not explicitly have declared the right to privacy. After “Govind v. State of Madya Pradesh” and Another, the court included the right to privacy into the ambit of right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian constitution and needs to be protected in any scenario.[14]

Interconnection Between Media and Press

At present we can witness that media has grown unpredictably due to over-commercialization and violating the right to privacy of individuals it has gone beyond the limits of its liberties. The right to privacy has a strong legal basis it is our basic, inherent, and inalienable right. Another view that deals with the same point are by Andra Pradesh in the case of “Liberation Front v. State of Andra Pradesh.” It was held that “Once an incident involving a prominent person or institution takes place, the media is swinging into action virtually leaving very little for the prosecution or the Courts to examine in the matter. Recently, it has assumed dangerous proportions, to the extent of intruding into the very privacy of individuals. Gross misuse of technological advancements and the unhealthy competition in the field of journalism resulted in obliteration of norms or commitments to the noble profession. The freedom of speech and expression, which is the bedrock of journalism, is subjected to gross misuse. It must not be forgotten that only those who maintain restraint can exercise rights and freedoms effectively”[15] The same decision was upheld in a decision of “R. Rajagopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others”[16] that press should consider the right to privacy.[17] Indian Constitution does not have any provision talking about the right to privacy explicitly. It is a deemed right under the right to life Article 21. For inter-relating right to privacy has to be understood in the context of two fundamental rights that is Article 21 and Article 19.

Though the press is playing a crucial role in public welfare it needs to act responsibly. For example, the writ petition filed by Ratan Tata before the apex court of India to deal with unauthorized publication of his private talk with Nira Radia infringing the right to his privacy. The writ filed before Supreme Court challenged the publication. The present issues highlight the issue that exists between media and privacy.[18] The issue is right to privacy is not a positive right it comes into existence only when it gets encroached. The law has only evolved through judgments. The right to privacy is often compromised when it comes to public welfare and state security. The Indian media breaches privacy in our daily life. We are experiencing a conflict between media activism and the right to privacy. If we sum up the basis it declares a dispute between the public’s right to know and infringement of privacy. With power comes responsibilities and right granted under Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution brings an obligation not to violate the law. so, while exercising the freedom of the press the human dignity and privacy need to be respected. The current picture of the right to privacy is blurred and requires the check. A plausible press brings matter into the public domain which needs to be checked but all it requires to mandate in mind requirements of privacy and law seems nowhere in reality.

Remedy for protection of privacy:

India being a signatory of the United Nations has adopted almost every principle into our constitutional framework. Universal declaration on human rights declared privacy as the most fundamental requirement and gave it the foremost position in Article 12. But freedom of speech and expression was only a part of Article 19 and it comes with restrictions under Article 19(2). Though libel and slander have no place in restrictions which gives right to press to use it’s right in an indecent manner. Freedom of the press was recognized in case Romesh Tapper state of Madras where the court held that the press has the right to propagate including the right to circulate. The above-mentioned aspects gave birth to the right to press. But at the same time, the right to privacy right to privacy does bot hold any independent status into our constitution so it does come at the same footing with right of the press in our constitution. This may be due to no presence of article right to privacy explicitly into the constitution and embedding its scope into Article 21 does no justice. Article 21 is an interim relief but to provide remedy protection of the right to privacy is needed and recognition of slander and libel into restrictions could enhance the scope to withhold the principles of UDHR as well.[19]

CONCLUSION:

Due to a lack of constitutional upliftment to protect the right of privacy, it receives setback and it fails to protect the interest of victims of the press. Though IPC provides punishment for the offenses of slander and libel but not for privacy. Legislators have ignored making powerful laws for privacy and scope till now has only be expanded by the judiciary. The only ground which can enhance the procedure of justice is Article 21 of the constitution as to date there is no way to codify laws on the same. The victims have to be dependent on the decisions of the courts to get justice. once it will be recognized it will stand at par with freedom of the press. I suggest if any action could be made like the Privacy Act. The right to privacy needs protection, especially in the digital arena. The establishment of any regulatory body for controlling the actions of the press can even both.

SUGGESTIONS:

·       Codification of laws related to the right to privacy.

·       While exercising freedom of press terms of privacy should be respected

·       Setting up the regulatory body for checking the work of the press

·       Including slander and libel into the reasonable restrictions

References:

·       http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/217/Freedom-of-Press-In-India.html

·       http://www.advancedjournal.com/download/169/1-10-16-525.pdf

·       https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40105/17/17_summary.pdf

·       https://madhavuniversity.edu.in/right-to-media.html

·       http://ijsae.in/index.php/ijsae/article/download/231/142

·       http://www.lawjournals.org/download/45/2-5-26-273.pdf

The post Freedom of Press and Right to Privacy in India appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

International humanitarian law is viewed as perhaps the oldest branch of public international law. The following words such as the law of armed conflict, Jus in bello, and IHL are often used as synonyms. The integration of international humanitarian law and a nuclear weapon is a branch of law that defines legal requirements and boundaries of the use of nuclear weapons[1]. The international humanitarian laws have their roots in treaties, customs, and general principles of laws.  It is particularly set in the form of treaties and involves participation from various states. The aim of IHL is to protect humankind from cruelty, suffering, and destruction to build a foundation of peace.[2]

Meaning:

International humanitarian law is the framework of rules of international law that governs the armed conflicts which in protect wartime protects the states which are no longer involved in the hostilities. These rules rely on International Law and Geneva Convention of 1949 and as such a part of International laws. These rules are binding on the states (means countries) and parties involves in the hostilities. the basic reason behind the formation of these rules is that even wars are conducted with rules. Though it sounds like human rights and humanitarian laws are similar but it has a difference

Background:

The International Humanitarian Law is also referred to as “ius in bello” currently and deals with the conduct of warfare. The International Committee of the Red Cross is considered as its guardian and the promoter. And defines it as “International humanitarian law is part of the body of international law that governs relations between states. It aims to protect persons who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, the sick and wounded, prisoners and civilians, and to define the rights and obligations of the parties to a conflict in the conduct of hostilities”[3] there are two ways in which history of international humanitarian law can be understood:

1. story of war and law in the context of humanitarianism

2. Story of imperialism and oppression

The history of laws of international humanitarianism tells that laws related to war have always existed to reduce the catastrophic destruction that occurs out of the war. And it is not only considered as a Western concern but other nations such as India, China, Japan, and Islamic regions have testified the same. It is after the 19^th century the codification of laws began and the international humanitarian law came into existence. The Lieber Code that conducts the regulations of the American Civil War is the very first instance of codification of laws related to war. The Henry Dunant who was a Swiss citizen was surprised seeing the suffering of soldiers and was inspired by Humanitarianism found the Red Cross Movement, which later became the promoter of international humanitarian law. later Dunant instigated of Geneva Convention 1864 for “Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the field. This convention started the tradition of Geneva traditions and history continues with a long list of following conventions: the Hague Convention 1907, the Geneva Convention 1949, and Additional Protocols.[4] The other story that revolves around the history of oppression and imperialism. The colonial phase showed the history in which the western world imposed negatively over human values that opened humans to war and suffering.[5]

Where it is found?

The international humanitarian law is majorly found in Geneva Conventions 1949. Almost every state agreed to be a part of this convention. This convention is supplemented by two other conventions that are: “additional protocols of 1977 that protect victims of armed conflicts.” And other agreement prohibits the use of weapons and military tactics that includes:[6]

·       the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, plus its two protocols;

·       the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention;

·       the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention and its five protocols;

·       the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention;

·       the 1997 Ottawa Convention

·       the 2000 optional protocol to the convention of the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts.

Nuclear Weapons and International Humanitarian Laws:

The presence of nuclear weapons creates a number of concerns in an international arena. The main concerns are related to the impact of these weapons on humankind and civilians’ areas, and their effect on the environment. their presence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 showed that the effect of nuclear weapons is long-lasting due to heat and radiation. The amount of destruction resulted out of the use of nuclear weapons causes serious questions on its compatibility with international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law does not prohibit nuclear weapons. But their use is limited by the rules of IHL which govern how weapons may be used and measures needed to be taken to reduce its impact on civilians.[7]

Following are the rules that govern the use of nuclear weapons:

·       Prohibition on attacking civilians and civilians’ areas: It is also known as the rule of distinction that requires the parties to differentiate between civilians and combatants, and civilian objects and military objectives. Therefore, attacks are prohibited on civilians and civilians’ objects. 

·       Prohibition on indiscriminate attacks: This standard restricts the utilization of weapons that are not, or that can’t be, directed at a specific military objective or that have impacts that cannot be constrained as required by IHL.

·       The rule of proportionality in the attack: as per this rule there is a need to take the assessment on the amount of destruction that may happen due to the release of a nuclear weapon.

·       Environmental protection is to be considered: preservation of the environment and all precautions must be taken to avoid and minimize the damage that may occur in the decision to use nuclear weapons. Thus, potential destruction on the environment must be taken into account.

·       The duty to take precautions that are feasible in the attack: following parties under conflict should take feasible precautions in the choice and methods of warfare with a view to avoid and minimize the loss of civilian life and injuries to civilians and their objects.

Views of International Court of Justice on Nuclear Weapons and International Humanitarian Laws:

As the fact is already known that nuclear weapons have a severe effect on nearby populated areas. The ICJ has given its view on the same in 1996 on the legality of nuclear weapons:

“[The Court] also notes that nuclear weapons are explosive devices whose energy results from the fusion or fission of the atom. By its very nature, that process, in nuclear weapons as they exist today, releases not only immense quantities of heat and energy but also powerful and prolonged radiation. According to the material before the Court, the first two causes of damage are vastly more powerful than the damage caused by other weapons, while the phenomenon of radiation is said to be peculiar to nuclear weapons. These characteristics render the nuclear weapon potentially catastrophic. The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet.”[8]

The above judgment raised serious concern regarding the use of nuclear weapons even with the IHL recommendations. Because using such an explosive device would result in catastrophe as it releases heat and radiations. There is a serious threat of damages to the environment as well. [9]

The Environmental Law for Nuclear Weapons:

International humanitarian law and environment:

The best way of analyzing the environmental effect of nuclear weapons is from the lens of International Humanitarian Laws. Through this approach, we can do a detailed assessment of the environmental coverage of some jus in bello instruments and rules. on the same, the ICJ stated its opinion: the issue is not whether the treaties relating to the protection of the environment are or are not applicable during an armed conflict, but rather whether the obligations stemming from these treaties were intended to be obligations of total restraint during military conflict. … The Court does not consider that the treaties in question could have intended to deprive a State of the exercise of its right of self-defense under international law because of its obligations to protect the environment.[10]

All stages of nuclear weapons from its production, development, and testing cause pollution as it contains radioactive substances and hazardous chemicals. The environmental treaties are distinguished as per the environmental sphere that is an atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. The radioactive substances present in nuclear weapons can damage any of these layers. The state that causes pollution founds in breach of the treaty that protects the following spheres.  Thus, the state that originates pollution is subject to environmental litigation for noncompliance with International obligations.[11]

Thus, it is to be focused that there is no signified rule under international humanitarian laws regarding nuclear weapons. But IHL tries to restrict the use of weapons even when it is legally valid. But the use of mass weapons is restricted as its use cannot comply with IHL.

Nuclear weapon-free world:

The danger posed by nuclear weapons is always a center of attention in the UN. In 1946 for the first time in the UN, the goal of eliminating weapons was put forward. Over the last few years, the attempt to do so has been put forth. But still, there is no restriction on nuclear weapons under international treaty laws. States do have the intention of strengthening peace have several agreements to protect their nations from nuclear weapons and forming nuclear-weapon-free zones:

Following are some treaties:

·       Treaty of Tlatelolco (1967) prohibits nuclear weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean;

·       The Treaty of Rarotonga (1985) in the South Pacific;

·       The Treaty of Bangkok (1995) in Southeast Asia

·       The Treaty of Pelindaba (1996) in Africa; and

·       The Treaty of Semipalatinsk (2006) in Central Asia

Indian Perspective on International Humanitarian Law:

International humanitarian law is part of international law. This law protects the countries which are not a part of hostilities. India is obliged by some International conventions and treaties under International Law. The UDHR declares that “all human being is born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience. They should act towards one another is a spirit of brotherhood.” But India later passed the Geneva Convention Act, 1960 under Article 253 of the Indian Constitution. Also, the misuse of the Red Cross was prohibited and it also prescribed the punishments for breach of convention 1949. India is not a part of Additional Protocols of 1977 so, India does not allow access to detainees, but it allowed ICRC access to terrorism affected areas. The International Criminal Court in India can only take any measure when the Indian justice system is not in existence or not been able to deal with crimes.[12]

India has propagated disarmament in history. But after getting challenges from neighboring countries Indira Gandhi agreed on testing of weapon and in 1974 nuclear device was tested in Pokhara. India changed its strategies through India in a philosophical perspective wanted disarmament but practically it became a challenge. 

Conclusion:

the legality of nuclear weapons is a controversial topic. The basic questions revolve around this are whether it is legal to use a nuclear weapon or giving threat of its use. The number of laws that exist already prohibits the use of nuclear weapons in light of its ignorance towards the humanitarianism and environment. The catastrophe has horrible suffering and destruction which threatens humankind. Therefore a treaty banning nuclear weapons is urgently required.

The post International Humanitarian Laws and Nuclear Weapons appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

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.

The post Landmark Judgement on Freedom of Press appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.