Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
:Presented By:
Mohit Jain
M.B.A.- M.B.L. Semester I
National Law University, Jodhpur.
Following are the basic objects for having the freedom of speech
and expression granted by the constitution in any democracy:
The article expressly mentions only a broad freedom and does not
define what all is included in such a broad phrasal expression. From the
various case laws decided on the topic, we can list out some of the
ingredients of the article as follows:
AVAILABLE TO WHOM
The article 19(1) secures those freedoms which are available to the
citizens of India only. This follows that a foreigner having no citizenship of
India can not claim right under the article.
Another point to be noted is also that only the natural persons are
considered to be citizens and by that virtue, juristic persons like
companies and corporations can not claim rights under this article even
though they may be registered in India and having a status of domestic
company or corporation.
RESTRICTIONS
Article 19(2) provides that for the following circumstances, the right
under article 19(1)(a) shall not be deemed to have been infringed by any
act of the state:
The case that I have to highlight here is Bennett Coleman & co. and
ors. v. Union of India and ors, which is famously known as the
newspaper’s case. The relevant citations are AIR (1973) SC 106 and
(1972) 2 SCC 788.
There was an Import Policy for newsprint for the year 1972-73
under which licenses were issued for 12 months. The policy contained 4
restrictions which were challenged to be violative of Article 19(1)(a) and
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The restrictions were as follows:
Another important fact was that the policies of the previous years
did not contain any such restrictions and nor did they differentiate
between single and common ownership units. Thus the restrictions laid
down by the current policy were challenged as they were from the face of
them arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable.
The defendants contended that the policy was not violative of article
19(1)(a) as the restrictions did not directly and immediately affect the
freedom of speech and expression and the test according to the rule of
pith and substance should be the subject matter of the challenged law
and not the effect of the law. In the present case, the subject matter of
the policy is “rationing of important commodity and equitable circulation
of the newsprints” and the restrictions were said to be necessary to see
that the policy is properly implemented.
The other stand taken by the defendants was that the petitioners
were the corporations and not natural persons having citizenship of India
thus they were not the citizens of India and so they could not claim the
rights under Article 19. many examples of the decided American case
laws were set forward by the defendants in the support of this
contentions.
THE JUDGEMENT: