CAD

Draft Article -13

Debated on –

 1 December 1948,
 2nd December 1948
 16th October 1949
 17th of October 1949.

The Constituent Assembly was unanimous on the incorporation of the rights to freedom in
the Constitution, therefore conflicts emerged around the clauses that allowed existing and
future laws to restrict the rights to freedom on certain grounds.

While some members were convinced rights could not be absolute, others
were concerned that restrictions effectively nullified the rights.

It was suggested that the term ‘reasonable restrictions’ be introduced into the Article - this
allowed the Courts to review legislation and strike down restrictions that were arbitrary.

Finally on 17th October 1949, the Article was adopted with amendments.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION 19(1) (a)

Law- Article 19(1) (a) states that - “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression”. Under Article 19 (2) “reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of
this right for certain purposes. Any limitation on the exercise of the right under Article 19(1)
(a) not falling within the four corners of Article 19 (2) cannot be valid.
Meaning- The freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) means the right to
express one’s views and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth,
writing, printing, picture, film, movie etc. It thus includes the freedom of communication and
the right to propagate or publish opinion. But this right is subject to reasonable restrictions
being imposed under Article 19(2).

Freedom of Press - Article 19(1) (a)

Freedom of press is not specifically mentioned in article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and
what is mentioned there is only freedom of speech and expression. In the Constituent
Assembly Debates it was made clear by Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee,
that no special mention of the freedom of press was necessary at all as the press and an an
individual or a citizen were the same as far as their right of expression was concerned.
ROMESH THAPAR V STATE OF MADRAS, AIR 1950 SC 124
Facts- In this case, entry and circulation of the English journal “Cross Road”, printed and
published in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras.
Held- It was held to be violative of the freedom of speech and expression, as “without
liberty of circulation, publication would be of little value”.
Reasoning- Patanjali Shastri,CJ, observed that “Freedom of speech of the press is the
foundation of all democratic organization, because without free political discussion no
public education, for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is
possible.

IN BRIJ BHUSHAN V. STATE OF DELHI AIR 1950 SC 129

Held- The freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas which
freedom was ensured by the freedom of circulation and that the liberty of press consist in allowing
no previous restraint upon the publication

4.1 Fixation of Maximum Pages

In Bennet Coleman Co. v. Union of India,

the validity of the Newsprint Control Order1962 which fixed the maximum number of ten pages of
that newspaper could be published and challenged to violation of fundamental rights which
guaranteed in Art. 19 (1) (a) and Art 14 of the Constitution.

The court has held that the Government can make a fair and equitable allotment of the available
newsprint to the newspapers but once the allotment are made newspapers must be left free to
determine how they will adjust their newsprint. They must be left free to determine their pages their
circulation and their new editions within the quota allotted them. Freedom is both in circulation and
content. Hence, it has been made clear that the fixation of maximum number of pages of
newspapers by the government is against the freedom of press guaranteed by art. 19(1) (a).

6.4.2 Fixation of Minimum Price According to Number of Pages

In Sakal Paper Ltd V. Union of India

the daily newspapers (price and page) Order, 1960, which fixed a minimum price and number of
pages which a newspaper was entitled to publish was challenged. Court has made it clear that the
freedom of speech and expression cannot be curtailed in the interest of the general public. The only
restrictions which may be imposed on these rights are those which clause (2) of Article 19 permits.
Accordingly the court has held that section 3(1) of the Newspaper (price and page) Act, 1956,and
daily newspaper (price and Page) order, 1960 made there under were unconstitutional as being in
violation of art. 19(1) (a)

6.4.3 Levy of Duty or Tax on Newspaper Industry

Indian Newspaper V. Union of India

the petitioner challenged the imposition of an import duty and the levy of auxiliary duty on the
newsprint on the ground of infringement of the freedom of press as it impose the burden beyond
the capacity of the industry and also affects the circulation of the newspaper has no immunity from
general laws like taxation or labour laws. The court has rejected the plea that no duty can levied on
the Newspaper industry. The levy of duty or tax on the newspaper industry is subject to review by
courts in the light of the provisions of the Constitution.

6.4.4 Regulation of Condition of Service of Workmen in Newspaper Industry

In Express Newspaper Ltd V. Union of India56t

he validity of regulation of conditions of service of workmen in Newspaper industry through working

journalists (Constitution of service and miscellaneous provisions) Act, 1955 was challenged. The
court has held that the object of the Act was an amelioration of the conditions of the workmen in
the newspaper industry. The court has made it clear that the press has no an immunity from general
laws like taxation or industrial laws consequently; the court has held that the Act is valid.

6.4.6 Pre-Censorship of Press

Censorship of the press is not specifically prohibited by provisions of the Constitution. Like other
restrictions, its Constitutionality has to be judged by the test of reasonableness within the meaning
of Art. 19(2) Imposition of pre censorship on a journal or newspaper previous to its publications is a
restriction on the freedom of press and will amount to an infringement of the freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a), However, the pre-censorship may be valid if it can be
justified on any ground of reasonable restriction permitted by Art. 19(2). But the imposition pre-
censorship in the emergency circumstances e.g., for the prevention of breach of peace or communal
disturbance will be valid.

BRIJ BHUSHAN V STATE OF DELHI AIR 1950 SC 129

Facts- The Chief Commissioner of Delhi, in pursuance of Sec. 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949,
ordered the printer, publisher, editors of the English weekly to submit all communal matters, news
and views other than those derived from official sources for security before publication till further
orders. The printer, publisher and editor of organizer are approached court.

The court struck down the order observing “…the imposition of pre-censorship of a journal is a
restriction on the liberty of the press which is an essential part of the freedom speech and
expression declared by Art. 19 (1) (a).

Virendra V. State of Punjab case,

The court has observed that prohibiting newspaper from publication of its own views or views of
correspondents about the burning topic of the day is a serious encroachment on the valuable right
of freedom of speech and expression. The court held that the prohibition of the material prejudicial
to the maintenance of communal harmony during the existing tense communal situation was
reasonable and valid. However, the court also held that the restriction must specify them arterials
not to be printed, the reasons and duration for which the restriction would be in force and there
must be provision for representation to the government against the order imposing such restriction.
If it is left to the absolute discretion of the executive authority it must be held to be unreasonable. In
Express Newspapers V. Union of India62 the Supreme Court held that a law which imposes pre-
censorship or curtail the circulation or prevents from being started or require the government to
seek government aid in order to survive was violation of Art. 19(1)(a). In Babulal V. State of
Maharashtra63it has been held that it would follow the provision for pre-censorship for limited
period in emergency circumstances and subject to procedural safeguards e.g. as in section 144 of the
Cr.p.c. is valid.

THE state has the responsibility of acknowdelging the following aspect of social order and the
systematic prohibit of the following the useful of the treaties of the almighty of the the proper of the
given of the useful network of the following systematic of the present constitution.

The present constitution also talks about the freedom to travel and speech and expression as given
in the US Constitution and the following ambit of the prospective effective of the constitution .The
severability of the compatibility and the severability of the dormant nad the issues involved in the
following case results in the exercise of the right given under freedom to speech and expression.,

Through various judicial pronouncements the judiciary time and again has aslwasy stated.