The structure of the Indian Constitution majority of the Supreme Court judges in Kesavananda Bharati v.

State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, were of the view that the federal features form the basic

Fundamental Rights . The Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 held that Part III of the Constitution protects substantive as well as procedural rights and hence implications which arise there from must efficiently be protected by the Judiciary. The Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331 and in R.D. Shetty v. International Airports Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628, has pointed out that corporations acting as instrumentality or agency of government would become State because obviously they are subjected to the same limitations in the field of constitutional or administrative law as the government itself, though in the eye of law they would be distinct and independent legal entities. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India , (2005) 4 SCC 649, the Supreme Court applying the tests laid down in Pardeep Kumar Biswas case .held that the Board of Control for cricket in India (BCCI) was not State for purposes of Article 12 because ,it was not shown to be financially, functionally or administratively dominated by or under the ,control of the Government and ,control exercised by the Government was not pervasive ,but merely regulatory in nature.

The doctrine was first evolved in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 781. In this case, the validity of C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1947, empowering the Government to regulate, control and to take up the entire motor transport business, was challenged a provision for district-wise distribution of seats in State Medical colleges on the basis of population of a district to the population of the State was held to be void (P. Rajandran v. State of Mysore, AIR 1968 SC 1012 The Supreme Court in Cricket Association of Bengal v. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting ( Govt. of India ), AIR 1995 SC 1236, has held that this freedom includes the right to communicate through any media - print, electronic and audio visual. In Romesh Thapar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1950 S.C. 124, it was observed that "freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of popular Government is possible ". Imposition of pre -censorship on publication under clause (2), is violative of freedom of speech and expression

Reasonable restrictions under permissible restriction heads can be imposed only by a duly enacted law and not by the executive action (Express News Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 133). If the State action impaired the rights of the shareholders as well as of the company, the Court will not deny itself jurisdiction to grant relief. The shareholders 'rights are equally affected, if the rights of the company are affected (Bennett Coleman & Co., AIR (1973) S.C. 106). In Tikaramji v. Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 676, the Supreme Court observed that assuming the right to form an association "implies a right not to form an association, it does not follow that the negative right must also be regarded as a fundamental right ". However, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held, that this right necessarily implies a right not to be a member of an association