Romesh Thappar v.

State of Madras AIR 1950 124

FACTS:

By the order which was passed under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949,
Crossroads Journal was banned for supposedly publishing views critical or defamatory of
the Congress party, which had just begun ruling India after having spearheaded India's
independence movement.
The petition was filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by the petitioner against the order of
Government of Madras imposing a ban upon the entry and circulation of the petitioner's
weekly journal Crossroads, printed and published in Bombay.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
26/05/1950

BENCH:
FAZAL ALI, SAIYID
BENCH:
FAZAL ALI, SAIYID
KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)
SASTRI, M. PATANJALI
MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
MUKHERJEA, B.K.

Issues
1. Whether entry and circulation of a print magazine is covered under freedom of speech
and expression?

2. Whether the ban of Crossroads Journal was violative of freedom of speech and
expression?

Rules
Constitution of India, Art. 19, cls. (1) (a) and (2),
Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act (XXII of 1949), sec. 9(1-A)

Analysis
Topreservethedemocraticwayoflifeitisessentialthatpeopleshouldhavethe
freedomofexpresstheirfeelingsandtomaketheirviewsknowntothepeopleat
large.Thepress,apowerfulmediumofmasscommunication,shouldbefreeto
playitsroleinbuildingastrongviablesociety.Denialoffreedomofthepressto
citizenswouldnecessarilyunderminethepowertoinfluencepublicopinionandbe
countertodemocracy.

Freedomofpressisnotspecificallymentionedinarticle19(1)(a)ofthe
Constitutionandwhatismentionedthereisonlyfreedomofspeechand
expression.IntheConstituentAssemblyDebatesitwasmadeclearbyDr.
Ambedkar,ChairmanoftheDraftingCommittee,thatnospecialmentionofthe
freedomofpresswasnecessaryatallasthepressandananindividualoracitizen
werethesameasfarastheirrightofexpressionwasconcerned.

TheframersoftheIndianconstitutionconsideredfreedomofthepressasan
essentialpartofthefreedomofspeechandexpressionasguaranteedinArticle19
(1)(a)oftheConstitution.
In BrijBhushanvsStateofDelhi1,theSupremeCourttookitforgrantedthefact
thatthefreedomofthepresswasanessentialpartoftherighttofreedomofspeech
andexpression.ItwasobservedbyPatanjaliSastriJ.inRomeshThaperthat
freedomofspeechandexpressionincludedpropagationofideas,andthatfreedom
wasensuredbythefreedomofcirculation.ThusTheCourtfoundthattheban
constitutedaviolationoftherighttofreedomofexpression.TheCourtconsidered
whetherthebancouldhavebeenlegitimatelyinstitutedforpublicorderpurposes.
Itconsideredthelawonthebasisofwhichthebanhadbeenorderedandnotedthat
itwasdraftedinbroadandvagueterms.Thiswasnotlegitimate.Onthefaceofit,
theLawallowedrestrictiveactiontobetakenevenincaseswherenoobjective
publicsafetythreatexisted.Thiswentbeyondwhatwasconstitutionally
permissibleandthebanwasthereforequashed.

conclusion
At last it can be concluded that, The Freedom of the Press is nowhere mentioned in the Indian
constitution. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is provided in Article 19 of the
Indian Constitution. It is believed that Freedom of Speech and Expression in Article 19 of the
Indian constitution include freedom of the press.

Freedom of expression enables one to express ones own voices as well as those of others.
But freedom of the press must be subject to those restrictions which apply to the freedom of
speech and expression. The restrictions mentioned in Art. 19 are defamation, contempt of
court, decency or morality, security of the state, friendly relations with other states,
incitement to an offence, public order and maintenance of the sovereignty and integrity of
India.

The status of freedom of the press is the same as that of an ordinary citizen. The press cannot
claim any immunity from taxation, is subject to the same laws regulating industrial relations,
and press employees are subject to the same laws regulating industrial employment.

1 [1950] S.C.R. 605

Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641
FACTS

The petitioners in this case were companies, employees, and shareholders thereof, as
well as trusts engaged in the publication of newspapers. They challenged the import
duty on newsprint under the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under
the Finance Act 1981, as modified by notifications under the Customs Act 1962 with
effect from March 1, 1981. Prior to this notification, newsprint had enjoyed
exemption from customs duty.

The petitioners contended that the imposition of this duty had an adverse effect on
costs and circulation and, therefore, had a crippling effect on freedom of expression
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the freedom to practice any
trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g). They further asserted that no public
interest justified such an interference with these fundamental rights because the
foreign exchange position of India was comfortable at the time. Finally, they
submitted that the classification of newspapers into small, medium, and large
newspapers violated the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the
Constitution (equality before law).

The government argued that the burden of cost borne by the newspapers and the
position of foreign exchange reserves were irrelevant considerations. The public
interest involved in taxation was to increase the revenue of the government, a burden
that is borne by all citizens of the country. It asserted that the exemption granted to
newsprint was not justified and, therefore, could be removed by the government.

ISSUES

Constitution of India 1950 Article 19(I )(a)- Freedom

of speech and expresion- Whether includes Freedom of press-
Restrictions other than those In Article 19(2)-Whether
reasonable-Interference in the name of Public Interest-
Whether justified.
Article 14-Classification of newspapers for levying
customs duty-Whether discriminatory.

ANALYSIS
TheSupremeCourtfurtherexplainedthemeaningand
importanceofthisfreedominthisyetanothersignificantcase:
TheexpressionfreedomofpresshasnotbeenusedinArticle
19butitiscomprehendedwithinArticle19(1)(a).The
expressionmeansfreedomfrominterferenceofauthority,
whichwouldhavetheeffectofinterferencewiththecontent
andcirculationofnewspapers.Therecannotbeany
interferencewiththatfreedominthenameofpublicinterest.
Thepurposeofthepressistoadvancethepublicinterestby
publishingfactsandopinionswithoutwhichademocratic
electoratecannotmakearesponsiblejudgment.Freedomof
pressistheheartofsocialandpoliticalintercourse.Itisthe
primarydutyofthecourtstoupholdthefreedomofthepress
38AIR1973SC10639(1985)1SCC641
NALSARProP.G.DiplomainMediaLaws75
MEDIAINCONSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK

MEDIAINCONSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK
andinvalidatealllawsoradministrativeactions,which
interferewithitcontrarytotheConstitutionalmandate.
Blackstonesaidthattheessenceoffreedomofexpressionis
thateverypersonshouldbeabletolayhissentimentbefore
thepublicwithoutpreviousrestraint,thattoforbidthis,isto
destroythefreedomofthepress;butifhepublisheswhatis
improper,mischievous,orillegal,hemusttakethe
consequenceofhistemerity.40
Onemainpurposeoftheconstitutionalprovisionaccordingto
JusticeHolmes,wastopreventallsuchpreviousrestraints
uponpublicationsashadbeenpracticedbyother
governments,thatitgenerallydoesnotpreventthe
subsequentpunishmentofsuchasmaybedeemedcontraryto
thepublicwelfareandthatthepreliminaryfreedomextendsas
welltothefalseastothetrue.41
InIndiatoo,peoplearefreetobelieveandtoadvocateorto
disbelieveandtoargueagainstanycreedandtheycaneven
saythattheConstitutionitselfisadocumentwhichshould
havebeendifferentlydrafted.Thegovernmentis
unqualifiedlyforbiddentorestrictorabridgethatfreedom.
Unliketherighttoproperty,whichislimitedandisinfringed
bytheGovernment,righttofreespeechandexpressionis
fundamentalandcannotbeunreasonablyrestricted.Freedom
ofexpressionhasadirectimpactonthedemocracy,public
officialsandpublicfigures.IndianConstitutionenvisagesthe
establishmentofademocraticrepublic.Thatmeansthatthe
governmentalpowersarederivedfromconsentofthe
governed,asexplainedbytheMeiklejohn.Government
withoutconsentofthepeopleisinconsistentwithpersonal
freedom.Governmentwithoutonesconsentisanaffrontto
humandignityandrespect.Everyonemust
40Blackstone,CommentariesonthelawsofEngland(1765;
4thEd.1770in4volumes)Book4ChapII151152.
41Patternv.Colarado,305US454,462
NALSARPro
76P.G.DiplomainMediaLaws

beaconsentingpartytotheGovernment,withoutsuch
consentheisnotlikelytobethememberoftheruling
machinery.Whenfreedomanddignityaresupportedbywide
spreadselfinterestandapprovaltheystandonasure
foundation.AccordingtoMeiklejohn,whenonemanorsome
selfchosengroupholdscontrolwithoutconsentoverothers,
therelationbetweenthemisoneofforceandcounterforce,of
compulsionontheonehandandsubmissionandresistanceon
theother...theonlybasicfactthatonegrouphasthepower
andthegrouphasnot.Insuchdespotism,aruler,bysome
excessofstrength,orguileorboth,withouttheconsentofhis
subjects,forcesthemintoobedience42.
Theideaoffreedomofspeechhasbeentransplantedinour
ConstitutionfromtheAmericanConstitutionandthatthe
AmericanConstitutionborrowedthisideafromtheEnglish
Constitutionalpractice.ItisclearfromtheEnglishprecedents
thatcertainformsofspeechincertaincontextshavebeen
consideredoutsidethescopeofConstitutionalprotection.
TheyarenotincludedwithintheambitofArticle19(1).As
thefreedomofthepressispartandparceloffreedomof
speechandexpression,naturallythepresscannotbesubjected
toanyrestrictionsbymakingalawunlessthatlawitselfwas
constitutionallyvalidi.e.,consistentwithCl(2)ofArticle
19.AmricanConstitutiondidnotspeltoutrestrictionsonthe
freedomofthePress,likeIndianConstitution.Dueprocess
clause,policepowersandclearandpresentdangertestswere
developedbytheUScourtstorestrictthepressfreedom.
DouglascomparedtheIndianandAmericanConstitutionson
thefreedomofthepressandsaid:
TheIndianConstitutionmerelyspellsoutwhattheJustices
oftheSupremeCourtofUnitedStateshadexpressedoverthe
decadesinregardtotheBillofRights.Thereappearstobe
nothingwronginstatingthecategoriesofmattersinrespectof
whichagovernmentmayimposerestrictionsonfundamental
42AlexanderMeiklejohn:PoliticalFreedom:Constitutional
PowersofthePeople,1960,pp2528
NALSARProP.G.DiplomainMediaLaws77
MEDIAINCONSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK

MEDIAINCONSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK
rights.Nogovernmentcanfunctionwithoutthepowerof
exercisingreasonablerestrictionsinsuchmatters.The
incorporationofthewordreasonablemakesitnecessary
thattherestrictionsimposedineachindividualcaseare
reasonable,andwhethertheyaresoornotmaybedetermined
inacourt.43
TheSupremeCourtofIndia,inExpressNewspapercase
(1959)saidthattherewasnoneedtoincorporatefreedomof
pressspecificallyasitgoesbyimplicationintheArticle19(1)
(a).However,theNationalCommissionforReviewof
WorkingoftheConstitutionunderthechairmanshipofJustice
Venkatachalaiah,initsconsultationpaperonenlargementof
FundamentalRights,suggestedspecificinclusionofFreedom
ofPressunderArticle19alongwithFreedomofInformation
andRighttoPrivacyamongotherfundamentalrights.The
Consultationpapersaid:Thesefreedomsarethebedrockof
democracy.Inmajorityofnationalconstitutionsfreedomof
thepressguaranteedinspecificterms.Itisfeltthatour
Constitutionshouldalsoexpresslyincludefreedomofthe
pressandrighttoinformationasguaranteedfundamental
rightsinPartIII.Righttoknowandtherighttoinformation
havebeenspelledoutbytheSupremeCourtinS.P.Guptas
case.44TheCommissionproposedtoincludefreedomof
pressandofothermediatoextendittotheelectronic
communicationvehicles.Anothersignificantinclusion
suggestedistoensurefreedomtoholdopinionandtoseek,
receiveandimpartinformationandideasregardlessof
frontiers.Itsuggestedfollowingdraftinplaceofpresent
Article19(1):
Article19(1):Allcitizensshallhavetheright(a)tofreedom
ofspeechandexpressionwhichshallincludethefreedomof
thepressandothermedia,thefreedomtoholdopinionandto
43DeanSivasubramaniansReviewofDoubglasWethe
Judges23,UniversityofChicagoL.R.563,565.
44S.P.Gupta&othersvPresidentofIndia&othersAIR
1982SC149
NALSARPro
78P.G.DiplomainMediaLaws

seek,receiveandimpartinformationandideasregardlessof
frontiers.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC
161
FACTS

1. Right to freedom is guaranteed by Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Receiving information is a part of it which also involves receiving
through telecasting. Subject to limitations air waves which are involved
in this is controlled by public authority, this restriction falls under 19(2).

2. Cricket being a source of entertainment the right to freedom of speech

and expression also comes within the ambit of 19(1). CAB and BCCI
have the right to organize cricket matches in India with or without
foreign teams. The Petitioners claimed the right to telecast these
matches through foreign agencies, they claimed it was a right flowing
from 19(1) (a) and the authorities should grant such licence.

3. The Respondents contended that air waves are public property and
cannot be used for ones own choice and pleasure. 19(1) (a) doesnt
include the air waves right and is a public property .It cannot be
granted as demanded by the petitioners.

4. If such right shall be granted it shall harness insecurity and instability

for the Nation.

Issues:

1. Has the organizer have a right to telecast through a foreign agency?

2. Do the air waves or frequencies come under public domain or public

property?

3. Does broadcasting of public property falls under 19(1) (a)?