SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Company Law

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. & ORS V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, (1972) 2 SCC 788

BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. & ORS V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, (1972) 2 SCC 788

 

FACTS 

  • The petitioners, comprising media conglomerates engaged in newspaper publication, contested the constraints imposed on newsprint importation as per the Import Control Order 1955. They also challenged the regulations governing the utilisation of newsprint by newspapers under the Newsprint Order 1962.
  • Additionally, the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73 introduced further restrictions based on four criteria: firstly, establishments owning more than two newspapers, with at least one being a daily, were prohibited from launching new newspapers; secondly, the total number of pages for any newspaper was capped at ten; thirdly, newspapers with less than ten pages were restricted to a 20% increase in the number of pages; and lastly, no interchangeability of newsprint was permitted between different newspapers of the same establishment or between various editions of the same paper. Consequently, the petitioners were unable to make adjustments within the quota limit, such as modifications in circulation.
  • Thus, the petitions challenged the Import Policy for Newsprint for the year April 1972 to March 1973. The Newsprint Policy is impeached as an infringement of fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) and right to equality in Article 14 of the Constitution. Some provisions of the Newsprint Control Order 1962 are challenged as violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • In order to counter the above mentioned petitions, the respondents (Union of India) argued that the petitions were not maintainable as corporations do not possess fundamental rights, which are exclusively applicable to natural persons. Furthermore, they argued that Article 358, the constitutional provision delineating “emergency powers,” precluded challenges based on fundamental rights.


ISSUES

  • Whether the petitioners, being corporate entities, had the backing of fundamental rights?
  • Whether Article 358 of the Constitution served as an impediment to any challenge by the petitioners regarding violations of fundamental rights?
  • Whether the restrictions imposed on newsprint import under the 1955 Order amounted to a violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
  • Whether the Newsprint Policy fell within the purview of Clause 5(1) of the Import Control Order 1955 and was consequently valid?
  • Whether clauses 3 and 3A of clause 3 of the 1962 Newsprint Order infringed upon the provisions of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution?
  • Whether Remarks V, VII(a), VII(c), VIII and X of the Newsprint Policy for 1972-73 were in contravention of Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution?                                           

                                   

HELD

The Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down parts of the newsprint policy of 1972-73 restricting newspaper use of newsprint. The judges argued that limits on the number of pages a newspaper could print, violated the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. They emphasised that a free press is essential for a healthy democracy.

 

  • The court first addressed the preliminary question of the petitions’ maintainability. It noted that companies did not bar the petitioners from seeking relief for the violation of the rights of shareholders and editorial staff, who were also petitioners. Furthermore, the bar under Article 358 did not apply to laws enacted before the proclamation of emergency. Therefore, the newsprint policy could be challenged as a continuation of the previous year’s policy and relevant orders.
  • The court emphasised that freedom of the press was an essential element of Article 19(1)(a) and the absence of an explicit mention of such freedoms as a special category was irrelevant.
  • The court reasoned that the faith in the popular Government rests on the old dictum "let the people have the truth and the freedom to discuss it and all will go well". The liberty of the press remains an "Art" of the Covenant" in every democracy.
  • Therefore, the freedom of the press is to be enriched by removing the restrictions on page limit and allowing them to have new editions or new papers. It need not be stressed that if the quantity of newsprint available does not permit grant of additional quota for new papers that is a different matter. The restrictions are to be Newspapers have to be left free, to determine their pages, their circulation and their new editions within their quota of what has been fixed fairly.
  • In the present case, it cannot be said that the newsprint policy is a reasonable restriction within the ambit of Article 19(2). The newsprint policy abridges the fundamental rights of the petitioners in regard to freedom of speech and expression. It deemed direct interference in terms of page limits and other regulations unjustified. Page limits could lead to economic challenges for newspapers, affecting circulation and limiting freedom of expression.
  • Consequently, the court held the Newsprint Policy of 1972-73 unconstitutional. However, it spared the Newsprint Order and Import Control Order from being struck down, as they were not identified as the sources of these restrictions.
  • Justices Beg and Mathew provided concurring and dissenting opinions, respectively. While Justice Beg argued the policy lacked a legal basis, Justice Mathew contended it was necessary to regulate newsprint for efficient use. The court spared the Newsprint Order and Import Control Order from annulment, as they weren’t deemed the sources of the unconstitutional restrictions.

 

COMMENTARY

“It should be noted that certain fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are for protection of any person, for example, right to equality, etc. (Article 14) are available to a company. In Bennet Coleman Co. v. Union of India [1972] S.C.C. 788, 806, the Supreme Court extended the rule by stating “it is now clear that the fundamental rights of shareholders as citizens are not lost when they associate to form the company. When their fundamental rights as shareholders are impaired by State action, their rights as shareholders are protected. The reason is that the shareholders’ rights are equally and necessarily affected if the rights of the company are affected.”