# 111!1 Tiu Colltclor of Cwtoms, M.adrtu v. N .ih.lla Sampalhu Cllltty AJ7an1ar ]. HMI S1Jltmber 25

- **Citation:** [1962] 3 S.C.R. 842
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Criminal Appoals No. 33 of 1959
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/111-1-tiu-colltclor-of-cwtoms-m-adrtu-v-n-ih-lla-sampalhu-cllltty-aj7an1ar-hmi-2478
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

111!1
Tiu Colltclor of
Cwtoms, M.adrtu
v.
N .ih.lla Sampalhu
Cllltty
AJ7an1ar ].
HMI
S1Jltmber 25.
842
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
[1962]
Criminal Appoals No. 33 of 1959, No. 126 of
1959, No. 123 of 1959, Civil Appeal No. 5ll of
1960 and Writ Petition No. ll8 of 1958 were not
heard on the merits and wo havo not oxamined
the_f~cta of any of those cases. Those appeals and
petitions should, therofore, be posted for hearing
in the usual oourse.
Appeals ooa. 408 ond 40~ alloww.
Appeal 110. 410 dism1'.ssed.
RAKAL PAPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS
v.
THE UNIOX OF INDIA
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., A.K. SARKAR, K.C.DASGUPTA,
N. RA.JAGOPAJ,A AYYA:<'OAR and J. R. MunHOLKAH,
JJ.)
Fundatnmtal Right-Fretdom of •puch-Statut. rti}ulating
number of pag'8 in ntw•paper according to price charg<dGo1 ... titutio114lity of-N•w•paper (I'ri" and /'a~e) Act, 1956
(46 of 1966)-Daily New•paper (Priu and Page) Ord'", 1960Co .... tittition of India, Art. 19 (1) (a).
The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, empowered
the Central Government to regulate the prices of newspapers
in relation to their pagec; and sizes and to regulate the allocation of space for advertising matter.
u~der this Act the
Central Government marle the Daily Ncw,papers (Price and
Page) Order, 1960, thereby fixing the maximum number of
pages that might be published by a newspaper according to
the price charged and prescribing the number of >upplements
that could be issued.
The petitioner challenged the Act and
the order as contravening Art.
1 q (1) (a) of the Constitution.
..
1/i/4, that the Act and the Order were void as they
violated Art I 9(1) (a) of the Constitution and v.ere not saved
by Art. 19(2). The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a) included the freedom of the prm. For
• .....,_
propagating his ideas a
citiz~n had the right to publish them,
to di.5$emlnate them and to circulate them, either by word of
mouth or by writing.
The right extended not merely to the
matter which he was entitled to circulate but also to the
•
-
,
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
843
volume of circulation. The impugned Act and Order placed
restraints on the latter aspect of the right. But its very object
the Act was directed against circulation and thus interfered
with the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) did
not permit the State to abridge this right in the interests of
tho general public.
Brij Bhushan v. The Siate of Delhi, [! 950] S. C. R. 605
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, (!959j
S. C. R. 12, Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras [1950] S.C.R.
594, State of Madras v. V. G. Row, [1952] S. C. R. 597,
Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur & Weaving Co.,Ltcl. [1954]
S. C. R. 674, Virendra v. The State of Punjab, cl958J S. C.R.
308 and IIamdard Dawakhana (wakf) v. Union of India, [19601
2 S. C. R. 671, referred to.
Held, further, that the State could not make a law which
directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the
better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech
could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the com·
mercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petitions Nos. 331
of 1960 and 67-68 of 1961.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement c.f Fundamental Rights.
G. S. Pathak, R. Ganapathy Iyer, S. S. Shukla
and G. Gopalakrishnan for tbe petitioners.
M. G,
Setalvad,
Attorney-General of India,
B. Sen, R.H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
H.P. Nathwani, J. B. Jadachanji, S. N. Andley,
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent
No. 1.
J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar
Nath andP. L. Vohra, for the interveners Nos. 2
and 6.
K. R. Ghoudhri, for intervener No. 3.
S. T. Desai, TE. Udayarathnam andS. S. Shukla,
for intervener No. 4.
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for
intervener No. 5.
S. T. Desai, E. Udayarathnam and S.S. Shukla,
for the petitioners (In petitions N cs. 67 and 68
of 1961).
1961
Sakal Papm (P}
Ltd.,
v.
Thi Unfon 6/ India
196/
SoAa/ Pope!!,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,765 of 54,636. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39765 for what follows._

111!1
Tiu Colltclor of
Cwtoms, M.adrtu
v.
N .ih.lla Sampalhu
Cllltty
AJ7an1ar ].
HMI
S1Jltmber 25.
842
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
[1962]
Criminal Appoals No. 33 of 1959, No. 126 of
1959, No. 123 of 1959, Civil Appeal No. 5ll of
1960 and Writ Petition No. ll8 of 1958 were not
heard on the merits and wo havo not oxamined
the_f~cta of any of those cases. Those appeals and
petitions should, therofore, be posted for hearing
in the usual oourse.
Appeals ooa. 408 ond 40~ alloww.
Appeal 110. 410 dism1'.ssed.
RAKAL PAPERS (P) LTD., AND OTHERS
v.
THE UNIOX OF INDIA
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., A.K. SARKAR, K.C.DASGUPTA,
N. RA.JAGOPAJ,A AYYA:<'OAR and J. R. MunHOLKAH,
JJ.)
Fundatnmtal Right-Fretdom of •puch-Statut. rti}ulating
number of pag'8 in ntw•paper according to price charg<dGo1 ... titutio114lity of-N•w•paper (I'ri" and /'a~e) Act, 1956
(46 of 1966)-Daily New•paper (Priu and Page) Ord'", 1960Co .... tittition of India, Art. 19 (1) (a).
The Newspaper (Price and Page) Act, 1956, empowered
the Central Government to regulate the prices of newspapers
in relation to their pagec; and sizes and to regulate the allocation of space for advertising matter.
u~der this Act the
Central Government marle the Daily Ncw,papers (Price and
Page) Order, 1960, thereby fixing the maximum number of
pages that might be published by a newspaper according to
the price charged and prescribing the number of >upplements
that could be issued.
The petitioner challenged the Act and
the order as contravening Art.
1 q (1) (a) of the Constitution.
..
1/i/4, that the Act and the Order were void as they
violated Art I 9(1) (a) of the Constitution and v.ere not saved
by Art. 19(2). The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (a) included the freedom of the prm. For
• .....,_
propagating his ideas a
citiz~n had the right to publish them,
to di.5$emlnate them and to circulate them, either by word of
mouth or by writing.
The right extended not merely to the
matter which he was entitled to circulate but also to the
•
-
,
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
843
volume of circulation. The impugned Act and Order placed
restraints on the latter aspect of the right. But its very object
the Act was directed against circulation and thus interfered
with the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) did
not permit the State to abridge this right in the interests of
tho general public.
Brij Bhushan v. The Siate of Delhi, [! 950] S. C. R. 605
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, (!959j
S. C. R. 12, Ramesh Thappar v. State of Madras [1950] S.C.R.
594, State of Madras v. V. G. Row, [1952] S. C. R. 597,
Dwarkadas Shrinivas v. The Sholapur & Weaving Co.,Ltcl. [1954]
S. C. R. 674, Virendra v. The State of Punjab, cl958J S. C.R.
308 and IIamdard Dawakhana (wakf) v. Union of India, [19601
2 S. C. R. 671, referred to.
Held, further, that the State could not make a law which
directly restricted one guaranteed freedom for securing the
better enjoyment of another freedom. Freedom of speech
could not be restricted for the purpose of regulating the com·
mercial aspect of the activities of newspapers.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petitions Nos. 331
of 1960 and 67-68 of 1961.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement c.f Fundamental Rights.
G. S. Pathak, R. Ganapathy Iyer, S. S. Shukla
and G. Gopalakrishnan for tbe petitioners.
M. G,
Setalvad,
Attorney-General of India,
B. Sen, R.H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
H.P. Nathwani, J. B. Jadachanji, S. N. Andley,
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent
No. 1.
J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar
Nath andP. L. Vohra, for the interveners Nos. 2
and 6.
K. R. Ghoudhri, for intervener No. 3.
S. T. Desai, TE. Udayarathnam andS. S. Shukla,
for intervener No. 4.
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for
intervener No. 5.
S. T. Desai, E. Udayarathnam and S.S. Shukla,
for the petitioners (In petitions N cs. 67 and 68
of 1961).
1961
Sakal Papm (P}
Ltd.,
v.
Thi Unfon 6/ India
196/
SoAa/ Pope!!, (I))
/4d.,
v.
Th~ L'nion oj /qfia
Mlldlio/J.ar J,
S·U
SUPREME G'OC.:RT REPORTS
[I Uu2)
1961. September 25. The Jmlgmcut of the
Comt was delivered Ly
.'lkDHOLKAR, .J.-A matter of far-reaching
impo!lancc affecting the freedom of the pre8s is
raisl'd i11 these three petiti011s when·in the eonstitu·
tionulity of the Ne\\'spaper (Price and Page) Act,
19iiu, and the Daily ~cwspapcr (Price and Page)
Order, I UuO, is questioned.
The first petition is Ly
1~ prirnte limit(•<l
company eanying on businc"s inter alia uf publishing daily and \\'t'('kly newspapers in Marathi named
"Sakal" from Poona and by two p(•rHons who arc
the only shar<'huld.,rs in that company. The second
and third petitions are proferred by two readers of
"Sakal" who also challenge the constitutionality of
the Act. CerLcin partic~ wNe allowed to intervene.
They dupporte(I the l'nion of India, th(' rc8pondcnt,
in all these pet itio11s and Bought to uphold tho
validity of the A"t and the Order.
Jn vil·11· of the
commo11 argum<'nt addu(·cd bl'fore us it would be
conv<'nient to deal with the firtit pctiti"n only in
full.
The newspaper ":::iakal'' was started i11 the
year JU:!2 and it iR dainwd that it has a net circulation of 3~,000 copies on wcck <lays and Gu,000 copies
on Sunclays in Maharnsht rn and Karnataka and as
such plays a loading part i11 the diHBemination of
news and vic11s and in moulrling public opinion in
m&ttcrH of public intcn•st.
The daily ad<litio11 of the 11ewspapor contains
sii: pages a day for five duye i11 a week and four
pages on one day. This editio11 is priced at 7 nP.
The S1111day edition consists of ten pages and is
priced at 12nP. Ahout .JU% of the space in thencwspapnr is taken up by advertisement matt.er and the
rest is devoted to news, u rt icks, features, views et-0.
It is claimed on behalf of the petiti• ·11ers that on~
of the special featuics of the newspaper is coverage
of foreign 11e1\'ti anrl despatches "11 foreign affairs.
It i~ claim ct! on lwh;df of th(' pcti1 ioncrs tlrnt this
••
'
-
3 S.C.H.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
845
paper is not aligned with any political party and
that upon controversial questions the public look
up to it for impartial appraisemem of the issues
involved and for guidance.
Briefly stated the effect of the Act and of the
impugned Order is to regulate the number of pages
according to the price charged, prescribe the number
of supplements to be published and prohibit the
publication and sale of newspapers in contravention
of a11y Order made under s. :l of the Act.
The Act
also provides for rngulating by an Order under s. 3,
the siZPs and area of advertising matter in relation
to the other matters contained in a newspaper.
Penalties are also prescribed for contravention of
the provision of the Act or Order.
We may mention here that in the year 1952
tho Government of India appointed a Press Commission for enquiring into a large number of matters
concerning the Press and one of the recommendations of the Commission was to enact a law such as
the one impugned bet'ore us.
This law is alleged
by the rnspondent to have been made to give effect
to that recommendation. Both the sides place
reliance upon the finding of the Press Commission
and ha.ve
invited us to accept these findings,
though not necessarily the recommendations.
The petitioners point out that since the total
number of pages which "Sakal'' gives to its reading
public on six days in a. week is 34, and that as a
result of the impugned Order they will either have
to raise its price from 7 nP. to 8 nP. per day or
to reduce the total number of pages to 24.
They
further point out that while at present all newspapers can islue any number of supplements as and
when they choose, under the Order they would be
prevented from doing so except with the permission
of the Government. According to them the Order
would have the effect of either compelling them to
increase the price or to reduce the number of pages
of practically every newspaper in the country as
1961
Sakal Papm (P)
Ltd.,
v.
The Unicn of India
Mudholkar J.
SaAaJ Paptrs (I')
L!d.,
v.
Tht L'11io11 of lndi·1
M udholkrzr J.
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
also of preventing them from publishing supplements without extraneous restrictions, which they
arc a.hie to do at present.
It is the petitioners' case that the impugned
Act a11d
the impugned Order are
pieces of
legislation designed to curtail a.nd which would in
effect curt.ail the freedom of the press and as such
arc violati\·e of the right guaranteed
under
Art..19( l )(a) of the Constitution. They point out that
if they continue to give in their newspaper the same
number of pa.gos as at present, they would have to
increasP itii selling price and that this will adversely
aff~ct its circulation. If, on the other hand, they
red nee the number of pages in order to conform to the
impugned order their right to disseminato news and
vim\'S \\ill
b<' dirrrtly inkrfored with. Thus in
either l'V<•i.t. there will be 1m interference with their
right under Art. I U( I )la) of the Constitution.
The petitioners point out that the impuguod
Order resen·c~ tt> th<> Central GO\'t!l'ilment
the
power to permit i~su< of supplements, 1·xePpt those
on January :!fl and August 15, and
th .. t the result
of this would be to place them at tho mercy of the
Government and thus interfere with their freedom
of expn'8sion.
They further puintout that the Act and the
Ordor are violative of the provisions of Art. 14 of
the Collstitution inasmuch UM their avowed object is
to promote arbitrarily the interests of some newspaper at the expcme of others. They contend
that inequality i,; writ hrge in the provisions of tho
Aot and of the Order and that thorc is no reasonable classification or
ba,i,is or auv mtional relationship between the restrictions ·imposed and tho
objects sought to be achieved.
According to them,
while thti established newspapers will be hardly
affect<'d
by
these
provisions those that are
endeavouring to come up will be h~mpere<l in their
progress.
'•
\..
i
3 S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
847
On behalf of the respondent, the Union of
India, in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, while it is admitted that the object of the
Act is to regulate the prices charged for newspapers
in relation to their pages, it is pointed out that
thia is bein" done to prevent unfair competition
amongst ne;,spapers as also
to prevent the rise of
monopolistic combines so that newspapers may have
fair opportunities of freer discussion. The effect of
the provisions of the Act is said to be to provide
for the maximum matter which a newspaper could
make available to the public at a certain price and
that this does not in any way restrict the rights of
the petitioners to propagate their ideas.
The
respondent, while admitting that by the operation of
the impugned Order a limitation is placed on the
space which a newspaper would be able to devote
to the propagation of its ideas and to news, says
that it would be open
to those newspapers to
increase the space by raising the price. According
to the respondent the circulation of a newspaper
will not be adversely affected by raising its price.
It is then contended that even if the circulation is
adversely affected thereby the fundamental rights of
the newspaper propritors guaranteed by Art. 19(l)(a)
of the Constitution will not be infringed. It is
also contended that the legislation in question does
not directly or indirectly deal with the subject of
freedom of speech and expression and that consequently no question of the violation of the provisions of Art. 19(l)(a) at all arises. The effect of
the Act and the Order, according to the respondent,
would be to promote further the right of newspapers in gene.ral to exercise the freedom of speech
and expression. Thus, according to the respondent,
n?.ither the intention nor the effect of the operation
of the law is to take away or abridge the freedom
of speech and expression of the petitioners.
It is further pointed out that all newspapers
publish advertisements and that this is a trading
activity. It is, therefore, necessary to differentiate
1961
Sakal P«p1rs (P1
Ltd.
v.
The Union of India
.AJuihtJ,k,,r J.
1961
Sakal Papn:; (P}
l.Jd .•
v.
7 },, c.:mon of b.dia
Mudholkar J.
848
SUPRE:\lE COUHT REPORTS
[1962]
between this activity and a.n activity which would
fall under ArL. 19( I }(a). The impugned Act and
tho Onler, according to the rospondent provide in
the public intorcst for
rostrictions on the tradin"
0
activity uf newspaμcrs.
It is pointed out that tho
spa.cc 1dlucatcd
tu advertis1'11lcnts by newttpapers
varil's from 4 u% to ii!i% and t.hat these advertise·
m(•lJb bring in a substantial re\·cnuc which enables
the ncwopapers to lie sold at. a price lwlow the cost
of pr<>rluction.
Placing reli1mcc upon the statemrnt
containt:d in the Ropurt of the Press CummiHsion it
is cuntcwled Pll behalf of the re~pondent that newsf'"lpern of long Htallding which ha\·e built up a large
and stable ad n·rt iscment rev(·nue being in a more
1i(lva11tagPous position than newcomers in the fi<'ld
of journalism arc in a
position to S<pwew out such
ncw<·omcrs with
the
result that tlwv arc able to
dc;troy tho frl·c·dom of l'Xpn·;;sinn
~f others.
A
fr.,o press, it is said, cannot mean a press composed
of a few powl'rfnl com bin!'S and that in order to
ensure freedom of press it is necessary to securo full
scope for the full development of smaller nowspa pcrs.
It is furth('r pointPd out on behalf of tho
respondent that the diminution of advertisemont
revl'nUP which "uulcl rrsult from the operation of
the Price Page Sthedulc cannot be regarded as an
infringement of the right under
Art. 19( I )(a).
According to the respondent the economics of
newspapers
and
the maximum
number
of
pages that a paper can give
with a reasonablo
margin for advertisement space was worked out
by the Press CommisHion which al•o suggustc I a
tentative Price Pago Schedule. In formulating
the schedule the
Pres~ Commission took into
nccount various factors such as cost of (I) newR·
print, (2) composin!Z and printing, (3) distribution,
(4) commission payable, (5) oditorial and ma.nagcrial oxpcnsns and (6) general overhead charges.
Tile present Price Page Schedule is said to be based
upon the ono formulated by the Press Commission.
_,
• '.
- ..
liill
'
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
849
It is further stated that the present measures
have been adopted upon the recommendation of the
Press Commission which after stating that the proper
functioning of democracy
requires that every
individual should have equal opportunity to put
forward his opinions suggested that measures should
be adopted to reduce the differences duo to economic
advantages and other caust•s to enable newcomers
to start with a fair ch1nce of success. It is with
this end in view that the present rates are stated
to have been prescribed.
The respondent further
points out that the bulk of the Indian language
newspapers priced at 7nP. will not find any difficulty
whatsoever in conforming to the requirements of
the order because they give five or less than five
pages on week days.
Only· a few newspapers will
be remotely affected by the order but in their case
the issue of large number of pages is due to factors
not connected with the functioning of the freedom
of speech and expression but for reasons connected
with
their
business
activities.
Newsp:tpers,
according to the respondent, are able to give more
pages because of their large advertisement revenue
or because they belong to a group or chain of
newspapers which do not entirely depend upon the
individual income of each newspaper.
It is said that the petitioners in particular
are able to give additional number of pages because
they devote a larger volume of space to advertisements th'ln others and that this is not something
done in the lawful exercise of their right of freedom
of speech and expression or of the right of dissemination of news and views. It is, however, as already
stated, admitted on behalf of the respondent that a
newspaper is a product sold below the cost of
production. The conclusion suggested hy the respondent is that it is only by increasing the revenue
from advertisement that a newspaper can increase
the number of its pages.
According to the respondent, the true purpose
of the impugned legiolation being the prevention
1961
Sakal PaptrJ (P}
Ltd.,
v.
The Union of India
Jt.fudh1Jlkar J.
1951
Sakal PoJJm (P)
Lid.,
V,
The Urri~ of lr.dia
II """/Jr" J.
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
of unfair competition which has rPsulted in denying
to others a right of propagation of idea.s by publishing newspapers, this legislation cannot be said to
infring" the right of freedom of expression of a
newspaper but on the other hand said to bo one
which promotes and encourages hcalhty journalism.
The impugned pro" tsions will, according to the
rcspomlc·nt, affect only those dasHCS of newspapers
which unfairly compete with the smaller onl'-a
kind ',f competition which is considered by tho
Press Commi~sion ati unh"althy and against the
interests of healthy journalism in a growing democracy. It i8 then Haid that "it is necessary to
aYoid unfair competition and even to promote
h('althy competition that papers have to ho put 011 a
criteria of equality anrl that thi8 could only be domi
by directly restricting the publication cif large•
number of pages a; against tho price ch:uged."
Then it is contended that what is aimed at by the
impugned legislation is the a.voidanco of concentration of ownership without interfering with healthy
competition between equals equally situated.
It is further stated that not univ was tho
statute enacted on the recommendation of the
Press Commission but that tho Price Pago Schedule
itself was introduced in response to the demand
pressed by the Indian Language
Newspapers
Association. It is pointed out on behalf of the
respondent that tho quantity of import of newsprint
is based on tho average number of pages of newspapers published in 1957 and that, therefore, 110
newspaper has tho unrestricted right to incnaso
the number of pages over the I !J57
figure. It is
also pointed out that the draft Price Pa.go Schedule
has been approved by the Indian Language Newspapers Association and that this Association has
recommended that the life of the Price Page Act
and Order shcJUld bo extended by another five to
ten yea.rs. It is denird that the provisions of the
Act infringe the rights conferred by Art. 14 of the
Constitution.
•
-
J.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
851
We have already indicated earlier, briefly,
the effect of the impugned Act and the Order. In
order to appreciate fully the contentions raised
before us it would be usefnl to give in brief a
summary of the provisions of the Act and of the
impugned Order.
First, there is the preamble which says that
the object of the Act is to secure to newspapers
fuller opportunities of freedom of expression by
preventing unfair competition. This is sought to
be achieved by the regulation of prices charged
for newspapers in relation to their pages. In this
manner the legislature expects to prevent unfair
competition among newspapers.
·
Sub·section 3 of s. 1 provides that the Act
shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a
period of five years from its commencement except
as reRpects things done or omitted to be done
before the expiration. The Act came into force
on September 7, 1956 and was thus du'l to expire
on September 6, 1961.
The Attorney-General,
however, told us that it was proposed to extend to
the life of the Act by a further period of five years
and we understand that its life has now been ex.
tended for an indefinite period.
Section 2 defines
"daily newspapr,r" and "newspaper".
Section 3 is the most important provieion in
the Act. It is this provision which empowers the
Central Government to regulate prices and pages of
newspapers.
Sub-section ( 1) of s. 3 empowers the
Central Government to regulate the prices of nevrspapers in relation to their pages and sizes if it is of
opinion that it is necessary to do so for the purpose
of preventing unfair competition among newspapers
and in particular those published
in
Indian
languages. It also 'cmpowern the Government to
regulate the allocation of space to be allotted for
advertising matter. Sub-section (2) of that section
provides for an order under sub-s. (1) to be made in
relation to newspapers generally or in relation to
1961
Sakal Papm (P)
Ltd.,
v.
The Union of Iniia
M udho!kar J.
1961
S1.kr.! /' •. ftn (P}
Ltd,
,.,
ffit [
011fr11 <.J.f fnJi•I
M 1u!f:.,,fL11 .I.
'
,,
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[Hl62)
any class of new8paperR and further provideR for
the making of diffor1·nt provbiom for daily ncwsp:tp1•rs and 11<'WSJlllJlPl'8 appParin~ at otlH'r pcrio11ical
intvrvab aA "ell as for different dasA<'s of newspapern.
~uli R<'Ction (:l) provides that tlw CL'ntral
l;owrnment, in
rnakin~ t.110 Order, shall have due
n•gard t<> a rraHonalile flexil1ility with r1·:;pN:t to the
fall of news and flow of a1lvertis1·m!'J1ts and other
mattBrs eonnect• d with the normal working of
newspapers. Sub-section i4) makes it obligutory
upon thn C1:ntral Goverment to consult asHoc:iations
of pul.iJi,,Ju·rs and su .. h pu bli•hcrs as am likely to be
affected by the Onkr as it may think fit with respect
to the action proposed to Im tak1•n.
Section 4
prohibit~ publication or sale of newspapers in tbu
territmie8 to whiPh the Act t'xtends in contravention of <lllY of the provisions of an order made
undn s. :i.
Section 6 provides for furnishing rPtnrns by
newspapers to the Press Registrar. Sub-section ( l)
of s. G proddes penalties for publication and salo
of ne1n,papers in c<•ntravention of the provisions of
s. 4.
Sub·section (2) of s. G provid1·s prnaltics for
some oth"r contraventions with which we are not
conccrnecl.
Se<•tion 7, which is th!.' last section,
prohibits the Court. from taking cognizance of
offences under the Act excopt upon a <·omplaiut in
writing by tlw Pr<·ss
Rcgi~trar or hy an officer
anth•JriHed by him.
It will thus be seen that tho Act c.an be
brought into practical operation only after tho
Ccntr 1 I
GovcrnmPnt
has
taken action under
snb-s. (I) of R. 3 and made an order r1•g11htin,!! any
of the matt.NB refPrre<I to in that section.
On Octob1·r 24, J!)(lO in exercise of the powers
confrrrcd by s. 3 the Central Government, after
consultation with t.hc Association of Newspapers and
Publisher" likely to be affected thcreundn, made
the Daily Newspapern (Price and Page) Order, I!HlO.
This Order came into forco on December 12, 1960.
It contains a schedule to the Act which is in two
•
•
"·
-
'
_.,._
38.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
853
Parts, Part I and Part II. Part I ap]Jlies to daily
newspapers published on six days in a week and
Part II applies to weeklies.
Paragraph 3 of the
Order provides that where the price charged for
daily newspapers is any of the prices specified in
col. 1 of Part I of the Schedule the total number
of pages of all the issues of that newspaper published during six days in a week ~hall not exceed the
maximum number of pages shown against that
price in that part. Paragraph 4 deals with weekly
editions of daily newspapers. Paragraph 5 provides
that the total num her of p~ges of all the issues of a
daily newspaper published shall not exceed the
maximum number of pages assigned under paragraphs 3 and 4 or under paragraph 3, according as
the newspaper is published on seven days in a wePk
or on six days.
Then there is a proviso to this
paragraph which runs thus :
"Provided that where there is a weekly
edition of any newspaper referred to in clause
(b} and the price charged therefor is different
from that charged on other days, the total
number of pages of all the issues of that
newspaper published during a week shall not
exceed the maximum number of pages assigned to such J\ewspapnr under paragraph 4 and
five-8ixths of the maximu u number of pages
assigned to it under paragraph 3."
Paragraph 6 permits the publication of additional
number of pages during the week not, exceeding six.
Paragraph 7 permits the publication of supplements
on January 26 and August 15 eaeh year and also
once in every quarter on such special occasion as
the publisher thinks fit.
Paragraph 8 empowers
the Central Government to permit the publication
of additional supplem ,nts or special editions in
excess of those referred to in paragraph 7 and
prescribes the number of pages which could be
published. Paragraph 9 relaxes to a certain extent
the rigour of the provisions of paragraphs 4 to 6,
1961
Sakal Papers {P)
Ltd,
v.
The Union of India
..\111dholkar J.
1961
SIA.I Papm (P)
Lid.,
v.
Th. L'm"on of India
M uJhalkar J.
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1962)
in that it prO\'idcs that the daily newspaper shall
not be rlcemed to havo contravened the provisions
of the Order unleso; the number of pages of all tho
issues of that newspaper pu bli8hod during
any
period of twelve comccuti\·o weeks exceeds the
quota assign<'d to such newspaper during that
period.
A barn perusal of tho Act and the Order thus
makes it abundantly clear that the right of a newspa(ll·r to publish news and views and to utilise as
many pages as it likes for that purpose is made to
depend upon thl' price charged to tho readers.
Prior to the promulgation of the Order every newspaper was free to ~barge whatever price it chose,
and thus had ii right unhampered hy State regulation to publish news and views.
This liberty is
obviously interfered with by the Order which
provides for tho maximum number of pages for tho
partieular price cha,rged.
The question is whether
this amounta to any abridgment of the right of a
new&paper to freedom of expression. Our Constitution rloe~ not expressly provide for the freedom of
preS!' but it has been held by this Court that thie
freedom is included in "freedom of Hpeech and
expression" guaranteed by cl. (!)(a) of Art. l!J, vitle
Brij /ihushan v. The State of Delhi('). This freodom
is not absolute for, cl. (2) of Art. Hl permits restrictions being placed upon it in certain circumstances.
That clau~e runs thus :
"Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (I)
1ball affect the operation of any existing law,
or prevent the Stato from making any law, in
so far aR such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by
the sairl sub-clause in tho interest& of the
security of tho Stnto, friendly relations with
foreign State8, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitc-ment to an offcnre."
(I) [1950]S.C.R. 605,610,
,I •
•
-
-
:i s.c.:B..
SUPR:liJME COURT REPOR'f'S
855
It is not claimed on behalf of the State that either
the Act or the Order made thereunder can be
justified by any of the circumstances set out in this
clause. The right to propagate one's ideas is 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 g1nranteed thus extends, subject
to any law competent under Art. 19(2), not merely
to theimatter which he is entitled to circulate, but
also to the volume of circulation. In other words,
the'; citizen is entitled to propagate his views and
reach any class and number of readers as he choses
subject of course to the limitations permissible
under a law competent under Art. 19(2). It cannot
be gainsaid that the impugned order seeks to place
a restraint on the latter aspect of the right by
prescribing a price page schedule. We may add
that the fixation of a minimum price for the number
of pages which a newspaper is entitled to publish is
obviously not for ensuring a reasonable price to
the buy,irs of newspapers but for expressly cutting
down the volume of circulation of some newspapers
by making the price so unattractively high for a
class of its readers as is likely to deter it from purchasing such newspapers.
It is not disputed that every newspaper
evolves a plan of its own for carrying on its activities. Bearing in mind factors such as the place of
publication, the class of the reading public which
may be excepted to subscribe to the pqper, the
conditions of labour, the price of material, the
availability of advertisements and so on it decides
upon its size, the proportion of different kinds of
matter published in the newspaper, such as news,
comments, views. of readers, advertisements etc.,
and the price to be charged. The plan evolved by
it is sought to be rudely shaken if not completely
upset by an order which it is open to the Central
1961
S•k•l Papers (P)
Ltd.
v.
The Union of India
Mudholkar J.
19Gl
Salial Papm (I')
u1.
••
Tiu Union of India
J/~d~olktu J.
SUPREME COD.RT REPORTS
(l!l62)
Government to mako under s. 3(1) with a view to
curtailment of circulation of newspapers. No doubt,
under s. 3( 4) the Government is required to consult
assoriations of publishers. Apart from tho fact
that tho Government is not bound by the opinion
of the associations, the mere circumstance that
consultation with them is made obligatory, the
action of the Government in formulating nn order
does not cease to be a direct interference with the
freedom of speech and expression of 11 citizen.
Aftor tho sclwdulo comes into force it will not
be open to a newspaper proprietor to charge less
than a certain minimum prico if ho wants to give a
particular number of pagos in his newspaper. If ho
should contravene this ordor he will incur a penalty.
Similurly he cannot publish supplements in excess
of four as and when ho chooses, except with the
permission of Government. The Order doos not
indicate the circumstances which would entitle a
newspaper proprietor to secure tho special permission of Government. Apparently, whether to allow
an additional supplement or not would bo dependent
on tho sweet will and pkasure of tho Government
and this would necessarily strike 11t tho root of tho
independence of the press.
In Express Newspapers (Prit-ate) Ltd., v. The
Union of India(') this Court has laid down that
while there is no immunity to tho press from the
operation of the general laws it would not be
legitimate to subject tho press to laws which take
away ur abridge the freedom of speech and expression or adopt measures calculated and intended to
curtail circulation and thereby narrow the scope of
dissemination of information or fetter it.a freedom
to chooso its means of exorcising tho right or would
undermine its independence by driving it to soek
Government aid. This Court further pointed out
that a law which lays upon the Press excessive and
prohibitive burdens which would
restrict the
\I) il959] S. C.R. 14-
'•
..
'
~
'
-.
3 S.C.R. SUPR1l!ME COURT REPORTS
851
circulation of a newspaper would not be saved by
IHI
Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.
Sa<aJ Pap.rs (P)
It must be borne in mind that the Constitution
must be interpreted in a broad way and not in a
narrow and pedantic sense. Certain rights have
been enshrined in our Constitution as fundamental
and, therefore, while considering the nature and
content of those rights the Court must not be too
astute to interpret the language of the Constitution
in so literal a sense as to whittle them down. On
the other hand the Courtmnst interpret the Constitution in a manner which would enable the citizen
to enjoy the rights guaranteed by it in the fullest
measure subject, of course, to permissible restrictions. Bearing this principle in mind it would be
clear that the right to freedom of speech and expression carries with it the right to publish and
circulate one's ideas, opinions and views with complete freedom and by resorting to any available
me'lns of publication, subject again to such restrictions as could be legitimately imposed under cl. (2)
of Art. 19. The first decision of this Court in which
this was recognized is Rome8h Thapar v. State of'
Madras('). There, this Court hold that freedom of
speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that this freedom is ensured by
the freedom of circulation.
In that case this Court
has also pointed out that freedom of speech and
expression are the foundation of all democratic
organisations and are essential for the proper
functioning of the processes of democracy. There
and in other cases this Court pointed out that
very narrow and stringent limits have been set
to permissible legislative abridgment of the right
of freedom of speech and expression.
In State
of Madras v. V. G. Row (') the question of the
reasonableness of restrictions which could be
imposed upon a fundamental right has been considered. This Court h&s pointed out that the nature
(I} (1950] S.C.R. 594.
(2) (1952] S.C.R. 597.
Ltd.
v.
The Uni•n of Iml;a
Mwi/wlkar ].
1981
Sa}; al Paptrs (Pl
ud.
v.
The Vniun of ln.Jia
,\fudho/Kar J.
sts
SUPREME COURT REPoRTs
(19G2f
of the right alleged to have been infringed, the
un<lerlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, tho
extent and scope of the evil sought to be remedied
thereby, the disproportion of the imposition and
the prevailing crmditions at that time should all
enter into tho
judicial verdict. In
Dwarkada~
Shrinfras v. 'l'he Slwlap1ir Spinning d: Weaving Co.,
Ltd. (') this Court has pointed out that in coustruiug the ConJtitution it is the substance and the
practicnl result of the act of the State that should
be considered rather than its purely lt>gal nspect.
The correct approach in such cases should be to
enquire as to what in su bstanco is the loss or injury
caused to the citizen and not merely what manner
and method ha.s bccu adopted by the State in placing the restriction. In Virendm v. 'l'he State of
Punjab (') this Court has observed at p. 319 as
follows :
"It is certainly a serious <'ncroachmcnt on
tho valuable and cherished right of freedom
of speech and expression if a newspaper is
prevented from publishing its own or tho views
of its correspondents relating to or concerning
what may be the burning topic of the day".
The impugned order requires all newspapers to
raise their prices if they want to maintain tho
present number of pages.
The effect of raising tho
selling price of !JeWBpapcr has been considered by
the Press Commission.
In Paragraph 1()4 of the
Report it is observed:
"The selling price of a paper would naturally havo an important effect on its circulation.
In this connection we hnve examined the effect
of price-cuts adopted l1y two English papers
at Bombay on the circulatir·n of thosP two
papers as well as of tho leading paper which
did not reduce its price. Prior to 27th October,
1952, Times of India which had the highcstcireulation at Bombay wns being sold at Rs.0-2-6
(I) [1954] S.C.11. 674.
(2) [1958] S.C.R. 308.
r
'
• -
•
'
J
r
:i S.C.R1
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
S59
while
Free
Press Journal and National
Standard which rank next in circulation were
being sold for Rs.0-2-0. On 27th October, 1952,
Free Press Journal reduced its price to Rs. 0-1-0
and within a year had claimed to have doubled its circulation. On 1st July, 1953, the
National Standard was converted into a Bombay edition of Indian Express wi~h a selling
price of Rs. 0-1-6. Within six months it too
claimed to have doubled its circulation ... During this period the Times of India which did
not reduce its selling price continued to retain
its readership. Thus it would appear th'lt
Free Press Journal and Indian Express by
reducing their price have been able to tap
new readership which was
latent in the
market but which could not pay the higher
prices prevailing earlier".
Then in paragraph 165 it is observed :
"There is another instance illustrating the
effect of selling price on the circulation.
The
two leading Tamil papers Swadesamitran and
Dinamani in Madras, anticipating towards the
end of 1950 a steep rise in the price of newsprint, came to an understanding and raised the
price of their papers from Rs.0-1-0 to Rs 0-1-6.
(These papers normally carried 30 to 36 pages
per week). The increase in price from Rs. 0-1-0
per copy to Rs. 0-1-6 was [,rought into effect
from 1st January, 1951. The result was a drastic
fall in circulation in both their cases. Subsequently in view of this fall in ci1 culation
they agreed to reduce their prices to the old
figure.
While the original fall in circulation
came about in three months duration one
paper took more than 9 months to recover its
old circulation, while the other had not done
so ......... It may be mentioned in this connection that tho circulation of a competing paper,
Tha.nthi ......... did not rise di.iring the thre~
1961
Sakal Papers (P)
.
Lid.
.
v,
The Union nf India
M ud/1.olkar J.
11111
s.t.J.J>.;as (P)
l.Jd.
••
TAJ U.t .. •/ l•<ii•
M ""-llior J.
sno
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962)
months when tho two leading papers bqd
increased the price ......... nor did it fall when
tho prices of the leading papers were lowered
again. The conclusion, therefore, appears to
be that over 33,000 readers had stopped taking any papers because the price had been
raised; ......... The period examined coincided
with an accentuation of draught conditions
in Tamil Xad; a certain foll in oirculation all
round can be attributed to these conditions.
Keverthelcss, it cannot bo denied that a
change in price <lid have a profound effect on
the circulation of those two papers'".
Though the prices of newspapers appear to be
on tho low side it is a fact that e'l"en so many people
find it difficult to pay that small price.
This is
what has been pointed out hy the Press Commission
in paragraph 52 of its report.
According to it the
most common reason for people in not purchasing
newspaper-. is the <·ost of
the newspaper and the
inability of the
household to spare the necessary
amount. Thia conclusion is based upon the evidence of ave~· large number of individuals and
representatives of Associations. We would, therefore, be justified in relying upon it and holding that
raising the price of a newspaper IWl'n by a small
amount such as one nP. in order that its present size
be maintained would adversely affect itll circulation.
It is, howe\•or, said that it is not necessary
for newspapers to rai;o their prices but that they
could reduce their number of paCJes. For ono things,
requiring newspapers to reduce their sizes would ho
compelling them to restrict the dissemination of
nows and viows and thus directly affecting their
right undor Art.
Hl( l)(al.
But it is said that tho
object could be achieved bv reducing tho advertisements. That is to say, tho newspapers would be
able to devote tho same space which they are devoting today to the publication of news and views by
reducing to the necessary extent the space allotted
~o ad vortisements. It is pointed out that newij·
• ....
.
-
"
~.
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
861
papers allot a disproportionately large space to
advertisements. It is true that many newspapers
do devote very large areas to advertisements.
But
then the Act is intended to apply also to newspapers
which may carry no or very few advertisements.
Again, after the commencement of the Act and the
coming into force of the Order a nev spaper which
has a right to publish any number of pages for
carrying its news and views will be restrained from
doing so except upon the condition that it raises the
selling price as provided in the schedule to the
Order. This would be the direct and immediate
effect of the Order and ?S such would be violative
of the
right of newspapers guaranteed
by
Art. 19(l)(a).
Again, s. 3(1) of the Act in so far as it permits
the alloca.tion of space to advertisements also
directly affects freedom of circulation. If the area
for advertisements is curtailed the price or the
newspaper will be forced up. If that happens, the
circulation will inevitably go down.