SAKAL PAPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS VS THE UNION OF INDIA

 

SAKAL PAPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS VS THE UNION OF INDIA

 

CASE NAME: Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India

COURT: Supreme Court Of India

JURISDICTION: Original Jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court Under article 32 of the constitution of India.

CASE NO.: Petitions nos. 331 of 1960 and 67-68 of 1961

BENCH: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Sarkar, A.K., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.

APPELLANT: Sakal Paper (P) Ltd., And Others

RESPONDENTS: The Union Of India

DECIDED ON: 25/09/1961

 

 

1.    INTRODUCTION

 

In this landmark case before the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme courtthe constitutional validity of the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956 and the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order, 1960 was challenged by one newspaper named Sakal claiming that the same violates the right to free speech. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the aforesaid Act and Order as unconstitutional being violative of freedom of speech as the same would either increase prices or reduce the number of pages whichwould inhibit the dissemination of ideas, a fundamental aspect of the right to free speech.

 

2.    FACTS OF THE CASE

 

Ø  A Marathi newspaper company named Sakal had a daily edition which contained 6 pages a day for five days in a week and 4 pages in one day which was priced at 7np. The Sunday edition consisted of 10 pages and was priced at 12np. About 40 percent of the space in the newspaper was taken up by advertisement matter and the rest was devoted to news, articles, features, views, etc.

Ø  The Government of India, in the year 1952, appointed a Press Commission for enquiring into the issues related to the press. The Press Commission submitted its report with certain recommendations.

Ø  To implement those recommendations, the Central Government came up with the Act, 1956 wherein it was provided that the price of the newspaper would be dependent on the no. of pages and size. It also provided for the allocation of space for advertising matters. Subsequently, the Order, 1960 was introduced which dealt with publishing the maximum no. of pages in relation to the charged price.

Ø  The Order, 1960 further prescribed the supplements which might be issued. Newspaper Sakal and its two shareholders in one writ petition and two of its readers in separate writ petition challenged the constitutional validity of both the Act, 1956 and the Order, 1960.

 

3.    ISSUES RAISED

 

1.     Whether the right of publishing a newspaper and its circulation comes under the right of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India?

 

2.     If the answer tothe first question is in affirmative, whether impugned Act and the Order is violative of the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India or the same is protected by the provisions of Clause 2 of Article 19?

 

3.     Whether the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) may be curtailed on any other ground except as contained in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India?

 

 

4.    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN BRIEF

 

So far issue no.(i) is concerned the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to propagate once ideas are inherent in the conception of freedom of speech and expression for the purpose of propagating his ideas every citizen has a right to publish them, to disseminate them, and to circulate them. He is entitled to do so either by word of mouth or by writing. The right guaranteed thus extends subject to any law competent under Article 19(2) not merely to the matter which he is entitled to circulate but also to the volume of circulation.

So far issue no.(ii) is concerned, it is held that from the perusal of the Act and the Order makes it clear that the right of a newspaper to publish news and the views and to utilize as many pages as it likes for that purpose is made to depend upon the price charged to the readers. Prior to the promulgation of the Order, 1960, every newspaper was free to charge whatever price it chooses and thus had a right unhampered by State Regulation to publish news and views this liberty is obviously interfered with by the order which provides for the maximum number of pages for the particular price charged. It is further held that raising the price of the newspaper even by a small amount would adversely affect its circulation. If a newspaper is directed to reduce their sizes then the same would amount compel them to restrict the news and views which leads to violation of article 19 1(a) of the constitution.   The court further held that Section 3(1) of the Act, 1956 which provides for the allocation of space for advertisement directly affects freedom of circulation since if the area for advertisement would be curtailed the same would affect the price of the newspaper resultantly the circulation will go down. Thus, the object of the impugned Act and the Order was to regulate something which is related to the circulation of a newspaper which is a part of the right of freedom of speech.

So far issue no.(iii), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression is an individual right guaranteed to every citizen by article 19 1(a) of the constitution. There is nothing in Article 19(2) that permits the State to abridge this right on the ground of conferring a benefit upon the public in general or upon a section of the public. It is not open to the state to curtail or infringe the freedom of speech of one for promoting the general welfare of a section or a group of people unless its action could be justified under a law competent under clause (2) of Article 19.

 

5.    ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

 

Having laid down the above principle the Constitutional Bench has gone through the provision of the impugned Act and the Order and found that by the said Act and the Order the Government intended to regulate the prices of newspapers in relation to their pages and sizes and to regulate the allocation of space for advertising matter. It is found that after coming into force of the said Act and Order the petitioner was compelled to either rise up the price to maintain the pages of the current edition or reduce the no. of pages and both the cases would directly affect the circulation of the newspaper of the petitioner. It is further found that the provision restricting the advertisement would also affect the circulation of newspapers as the same is dependent on the quantity of advertisement. Finally, the Constitutional Bench held the impugned Act,1956, and the Order, 1960 as unconstitutional being restricting the right of speech and expression of the petitioner.