Case laws Freedom of press and Freedom of speech and Expression

By


1. Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1962)

  • Key Issue: The case challenged the Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, which regulated the number of pages and the price of newspapers.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Act violated the freedom of the press as it directly affected the circulation of newspapers, and thus, freedom of expression.
  • Significance: This case underscored that any law restricting the content or circulation of the press is unconstitutional if it infringes upon the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

2. Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1958)

  • Key Issue: The validity of a government order that imposed restrictions on the allotment of newsprint to newspapers.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the order imposed undue restrictions on the press, affecting its freedom to publish.
  • Significance: Reinforced the principle that the government cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on the press through administrative orders.

3. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India (1973)

  • Key Issue: The government imposed restrictions on the number of pages newspapers could print, affecting the cost and volume of content.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court declared the restrictions unconstitutional as they directly interfered with the freedom of the press.
  • Significance: Established that freedom of the press includes the right to determine the content, size, and circulation of publications without governmental interference.

4. Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985)

  • Key Issue: The case challenged the imposition of customs duties on the import of newsprint.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the imposition of duties could affect the viability of newspapers and thus their freedom. It emphasized that the government should consider the impact on the freedom of the press before imposing such duties.
  • Significance: Highlighted that economic regulations impacting the press must be carefully balanced against the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

  • Key Issue: Though primarily a case on personal liberty (Article 21), it also discussed the broader scope of freedom of expression.
  • Judgment: The Court expanded the interpretation of Article 19(1)(a), stating that freedom of speech and expression is intertwined with personal liberty.
  • Significance: This case broadened the scope of freedom of expression, indirectly reinforcing the protection of press freedom.

6. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

  • Key Issue: The case involved the right to publish the autobiography of a prisoner, challenging state interference.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the state cannot impose prior restraint on publication unless it relates to issues like defamation or invasion of privacy.
  • Significance: Reaffirmed the principle of no prior restraint and emphasized the press’s right to publish material of public interest.

7. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

  • Key Issue: The constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act, which restricted online speech.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, holding that it violated Article 19(1)(a) as it was vague and overly broad.
  • Significance: While focused on online speech, the judgment had broader implications for all forms of media, reinforcing the protection of free speech, including digital media.

8. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)

  • Key Issue: Concerned the ban on a film critical of political and social issues.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to express opinions through films. Restrictions can only be imposed if they lead to an imminent threat to public order.
  • Significance: Expanded the understanding of freedom of expression to include artistic freedom, which is also relevant to media.

9.Virendra v. State of Punjab (1957)

  • Key Issue: The case involved an order by the Punjab government to temporarily prohibit the printing of certain newspapers.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that such an order was unconstitutional as it imposed a prior restraint on the press, which is generally impermissible.
  • Significance: Reinforced the principle that any form of prior censorship on the press must be carefully scrutinized and justified under the grounds provided in Article 19(2).

10. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

  • Key Issue: The Madras government banned a journal, citing public safety.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled the ban unconstitutional, asserting that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to propagate ideas and opinions, which is essential for democracy.
  • Significance: This was one of the first cases to articulate the scope of press freedom in independent India.

11. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi (1950)

  • Key Issue: A government order sought to pre-censor a newspaper for publishing certain articles.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down the order, holding that pre-censorship violated the freedom of the press.
  • Significance: Reinforced the press’s right to publish without prior restraint, emphasizing that freedom of speech includes the freedom to publish without pre-approval.

12. Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms (2002)

  • Key Issue: Concerned the right of citizens to know the antecedents of electoral candidates, which was argued as part of freedom of the press.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to information, especially about public figures.
  • Significance: Strengthened the media’s role in informing the public about matters of public interest, particularly in the context of elections.

13. S. N. Roy v. State of Bihar (1963)

  • Key Issue: The case dealt with the imposition of restrictions on the distribution of certain publications.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that any restriction that affects the distribution or circulation of newspapers must be carefully justified and proportionate.
  • Significance: Affirmed that the freedom of the press is not just about the content but also about its distribution and reach.

14. Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India (1959)

  • Key Issue: The case challenged restrictions on advertising certain medicinal products in newspapers.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the restrictions, stating that advertisements do not enjoy the same level of protection as news or opinions under Article 19(1)(a).
  • Significance: Distinguished between commercial speech (advertisements) and core freedom of speech (news and editorial content).

15. Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO (1994)

  • Key Issue: The case challenged the imposition of sales tax on newspapers, arguing it affected press freedom.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held that imposing a tax on newspapers is not per se unconstitutional but must be reasonable and not curtail the freedom of the press.
  • Significance: Highlighted the economic aspect of press freedom, emphasizing that financial burdens should not stifle the press’s ability to operate freely.

15. Siddhartha Shankar Ray v. Union of India (1984)

  • Key Issue: Concerned restrictions on the publication of parliamentary proceedings.
  • Judgment: The Court held that reporting parliamentary proceedings is a vital aspect of the press’s role and restrictions on such reporting must meet strict scrutiny.
  • Significance: Affirmed the press’s role in covering governmental and parliamentary activities, ensuring transparency and public awareness.

16. Hindustan Times v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2003)

  • Key Issue: Concerned the imposition of high electricity charges on newspaper establishments.
  • Judgment: The Court held that such charges must be reasonable and should not indirectly curtail the freedom of the press.
  • Significance: Emphasized that economic policies should not indirectly impede the functioning and freedom of the press.

These cases collectively underscore the judicial commitment to protecting the freedom of the press as a fundamental right, while also balancing it against reasonable restrictions as outlined in Article 19(2).